Court Opinion

ID: 9958774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:30.704753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:34.469628
License: Public Domain

Novus Capital Funding II LLC v J & M Distrib., Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31108(U)
                     March 28, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 517032/2023
                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 04/02/2024 10:07 AM                                                              INDEX NO. 517032/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

                                                                                               At an IAS Term, Part 52 of
                                                                                               the Supreme Court ofthe
                                                                                               State ofNew York,held in
                                                                                               and for the County of
                                                                                               Kings, at the Courthouse,
                                                                                               at Civic Center, Brooldyn,
                                                                                               New York, on the 28th day
                                                                                               of March 2024

           HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA
           -----· ------------------------- .---------- . --------. --- .---- .- .-X
           NOVUS CAPITAL FUNDING II LLC,

                                                Plaintiff,                                     DECISION & ORDER
                                                                                               IndexNo. 517032/2023
                                     -against-

           J & M DISTRIBUTING, INC. D/B/A
           MEADOW GOLD DAIRY PRODUCTS,
           GLASGOW CAL RIPKEN BASEBALL
           MEADOW, MAND D YARD SERVICE,
           and MICHAEL BRENT MEIERS,

                                                Defendants.
           -------·.------------- .--· . ------ ·---· -·----· ----------- .- .. ----. --- ·x
                  Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the
           notice of motion filed on December 12, 2023, uncler motion sequence number one; by
           Nevus Capital Funding II LLC (hereinafter the plaintiff) for an order pursµant to CPLR
           3212granting summ~ryjudgment in its favor on its causes of action for breach of
           contract, breach of a guaranty agreement, and attorney's fees against J & M Distributing,
           Inc. D/B/A Meadow Gold Dairy Products, Glasgow Cal Ripken BasebaUMeadow, M
           and D Yard Service, (hereinafterthe company defendants) and Michael Brent Meiers
           (hereinafter the guarantor) (hereinafter jointly the defendants). The motion is opposed.

           -Notice of Motion
           -Affidavit in Su,pport
                  Exhibits A-B
           -Affinnation in. S~pport
                  Exhibits A.:J)
           -Affirmation in opposition
                 Exhibits A,.F
           .:Meinoraridutn qf law in opposition

                                                                    1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 10:07 AM                                             INDEX NO. 517032/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            --Memorandum oflaw inreply

            BACKGROUND

                  On June 12, 2023, plaintiff c:ommenced the instant action by filing a summons and

            complaint with the Kings County Clerk's office {KCCO). On JuneJ, 2023, the

            defendants interposed and filed a joint verified answer with the KCCO.

                  The ,complaint alleges seventy-nine allegations of fact in support ofthree

           denominated causes of action. The first is for breach of contrac:t, the second is for breac:h

           ofa g11aranty agreement,and the third is for attorney's fees based on an alleged breach of

           these.· agreements.

                   The complaint alleges the following salient facts. On March 20, 2023, the

           plaintiff and the defendants entered into a revenue purchase agreement {hereinafter the

           agreement), whereby the plail}tiff purchased from the company defendants its future

           accounts receivable having a value of$134;910.00 for the purchase price. of$90,000.00.

                  The company defendant,in consideration ofthesumof$90,000.00 sold, assigned,

           and transferred to plaintiff seventeen (12%) percent ofits weekly future sales proceeds,

           up to anaggregatearnountof$134,910.00. By the agreement, Michael BrentMeiers

           executed a personal guarantee if the coinpany defendants defaulted on the agreement.

                  Within weeks the company defendants defaulted under the agreement by failing to

           remit its sales proceeds t:othe.plaintiffas provided for in the agreement In total, the

           company defendc1nts remitted tlte amourtt of$6 7 A55. 00 in accordance with the

           agreement, leaving a balance of$67,455.00 remaining due and owing. Contrary to the

           guaranty agreement Michael BrentMeiers.did not guarantee the co1npany·defendan~s;

                                                      2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 10:07 AM                                               INDEX NO. 517032/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            performance. Plaintiff also claittis that pursuant totheagreement a non-sufficient fund

            -fees or (NSF) in the amount of$50.00 and a default fee in the amount of $22,260.00 is
                        ..                .

            also due. Plaintiff claims the total amount it is due is $89,765.15 consisting of

            $67,455.00 and the additional fees totaling $22,310.15.

            LAW AND APPLICATION

                   It is well established that summary judgment may be granted only when no triable

            issue of fact exists (Alvarez VProspectHospital; 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]).The burden

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

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

           demonstrating the absence of material facts (Giuffrida v Citibank, 100 NY2d 72, 81

            [2003]).

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

           motion, regardless ofthe adequacy of the opposing papers (Ayotte v Gervasio, 8 lNY2d

            1062, 1063 [ 1993 ]).Jf prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the

           opposing party to produce eviderttiary proof sufficient to establish the existence of

           material issues· of fact (Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324).

                  Pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), a court will grant a motion for summary judgment
                                              .   .                                       .

           upon a determination that the movant1s papers justify holding, as a matter of law, that

           there is no defense to the cause of ac:tionor that the cause of action or defense has no

           1nerit. Furthermore, all of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the

           opponent of the motion (Marine MidlandBank v Dino & Artie's Automatic Transmission

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

                                                      3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 10:07 AM                                                 INDEX NO. 517032/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

                   In the case at bar, the only sworn testimony submitted by the plaintiff in support
                                                                 .              .

            of the motion was an affirmation of David J. Austin, Esq., its counsel (hereinafter

            Austin), and art affidavit of Ekaterina Marciante, its collection manager (hereinafter

            Marciante). Austin's affirmation demonstrated no personal lmowledge· of any of the·

            transactional facts allegedinthe complaint. An attorney's affinnation that isnot based

            upon personal knowledge is ofno probative or evidentiarysignificance(Nerayojfv

            Khorshad, 168 AD3d 866, 867 [2d Dept 2019], citing Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental,

            Inc., 35 AD3d 455,456 [2d Dept 2006]). Austin's affinnation stated that the facts in

            support of the motion were contained in the affidavit of Marciante.

                   Marciante's affidavit alleged that the purchase price minus agreed-upon fees was

            paid and referred to a section of the agreement as proofofthe sarne. Marciante, however,

            offered nothing toprove that any amount was actually paid. The plaintiffdid not proffer

            a canceled check, wire transfer, 01· other acceptable proofthatthepurchaseprice was
                                                            .                       .

            actually paid.

                   "The essential elements ofa cause of action to recover damages for breach of

            contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance· pursuant to the·

            contract, the defendant's breach of its contractual obligations; a.nd damages resulting from

            the breach" (see Cruz v Cruz, 213 AD3d 805 [2d Dept 2023], quoting Klein v Signature

            Bank, Inc., 204 AD3d 892, 895 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

                   To prev1:1.il on the instant 1noticin, it was incum:bent upon the plaintiff to prove

            each of these eleinents as a matter of law .. The plainti ff provided no evidence

            deirtoristratirtgthatit perfonned.its part o:fthe agreement by paying the company

                                                        4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 10:07 AM                                           INDEX NO. 517032/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            defendants the agree(t-upon purchase price. Consequently, the plaintiff did not meet its

            burden of demonstrating as a matter oflawthat the defendants breached the agreement.

            Inasmuch as the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing that the company

            defendants breached the agreement, the obligation of the guarantor was not triggered. As

           aresult, the plaintiff also failed to show that the guarantor breached the agreement.

                  Inasmuch, as the plaintifffailed to demonstrate that the company defendants or the

            guarantor breached the agreement, the third cause of action for attorney's fees based on a

            breach ofthese agreements is also unsupported. The motion is therefore denied without

            regard to the sufficiency or lack of opposing papers (Cugintv System Lbr. Co., 111 AD2d

            114, 115 [lst_Dept 1985]).

            CONCLUSION

                  The branch ofthe motion by Novus Capital Funding II LLC for an order pursuant

           to CPLR 3212 granting summary judg1nent in its favor on its causes of action for breach

           of contract, breach ofa guaranty agreement, and attorney's fees as against defendants I &

           M Distributing, Inc. D/B/A Meadow Gold Dairy Products, Glasgow CalRipken Baseball

           Meadow, M and D Yard Service, and Michael Brent Meiers is denied.

                  The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

           ENTER:

                                                                     J.S:.C.
                                                 ·~A.RIVERA

                                                     5 of 5
[* 5]