Court Opinion

ID: 9958734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:15.640972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.817382
License: Public Domain

US Pony Holdings, LLC v Fashion Footwear LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31089(U)
                      April 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 655022/2022
                 Judge: Melissa A. Crane
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: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 04:14 P~                                                          INDEX NO. 655022/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 254                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                                SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                          NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:          HON. MELISSA A. CRANE                                     PART                             SOM
                                                                             Justice
                   -------------------X                                                 INDEX NO.          655022/2022
             US PONY HOLDINGS, LLC,
                                                                                        MOTION DATE          N/A, N/A
                                                     Plaintiff,
                                                                                        MOTION SEQ. NO.      005 006
                                             - V -

             FASHION FOOTWEAR LLC,                                                        DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                 MOTION
                                                     Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------X

             FASHION FOOTWEAR LLC                                                                  Third-Party
                                                                                             Index No. 595052/2023
                                                     Plaintiff,

                                             -against-

             ICON DE HOLDINGS LLC

                                                     Defendant.
             ------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 189, 190, 191, 192,
            193,194,195,196,198,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,250
                                                                          VACATE/STRIKE - NOTE OF ISSUE/JURY
            were read on this motion to/for                                 DEMAND/FROM TRIAL CALENDAR

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 181, 182, 183, 184,
            185,186,187,188,197,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,251
            were read on this motion to/for                                             DISCOVERY

                    Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Fashion Footwear LLC ("Fashion") has moved for an

           order compelling Plaintiff US Pony Holdings, LLC ("Pony") to produce documents in response to

           Requests 4, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 29 of Fashion's First Set of Requests for the Production of

           Documents (MS 06). Additionally, because Pony already filed the note of issue on January 18,

           2024, certifying that the parties had completed all necessary discovery (Note of Issue, NYSCEF

            655022/2022 US PONY HOLDINGS, LLC vs. FASHION FOOTWEAR LLC                                      Page 1 of4
            Motion No. 005 006

[* 1]                                                               1 of 4
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 04:14 P~                                                INDEX NO. 655022/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 254                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            Doc. No. 170), Fashion has also moved to vacate that note of issue to allow for the additional

            discovery that it seeks in the motion to compel (MS 05).

                   The court denies Fashion's motion to compel. A party is not entitled to discovery where
                                                                                        i
            the party fails to show that the discovery is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense

            of claims in the case (Pacelli v Peter L. Cedeno & Associates, P. C., 192 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2021]

            [holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to information "unrelated to any elements of their

            claims"]; Foster v Snow, 221 AD3d 405,406 [1st Dept 2023] [holding that, the court "providently
                                                                                        I
            exercised its discretion in denying defendants' motion to compel" where the defendants "failed to

            show that this discovery was relevant and necessary to their defense of plaintiffs' claims"]).

            Further, a court will not enforce a discovery demand based on "hypothetical speculation[]

            calculated to justify a fishing expedition" (see AQ Asset Management LLC v Levine, 138 AD3d

            635,636 [1st Dept 2016] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).

                   Fashion seeks discovery related to Genesco, the licensee that allegedly replaced Fashion

            after Pony purportedly terminated its license agreement with Fashion. Fashion asserts that this

            discovery is relevant to show that Pony acted in bad faith in purportedly terminating the license

            agreement with Fashion. Fashion argues that Pony "intentionally breached the Pony License as a

           pretext for ... replacing Fashion with Genesco" (Motion to Compel Opening Papers, NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 188, p. 2). Fashion asserts that this showing of bad faith would allow it to avoid an
                                                                                        I
            exculpatory clause in the license agreement that would otherwise bar Fashion's lost profits claim

           (id.; see License Agreement, NYSCEF Doc. No. 183, § 18.7). Fashion also asserts that Pony's

           alleged bad faith precludes Pony's equitable estoppel defense. The court rejects these theories.

                   An exculpatory clause such as section 18. 7 is unenforceable when enforcement would

            immunize conduct that "smacks of intentional wrongdoing" (Electron Trading, LLC v Morgan

             655022/2022 US PONY HOLDINGS, LLC vs. FASHION FOOTWEAR LLC                           Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 005 006

[* 2]                                                     2 of 4
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 04:14 P~                                                INDEX NO. 655022/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 254                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           Stanley & Co. LLC, 157 AD3d 579, 580-581 [1st Dept 2018] [citations and internal quotation

           marks omitted]). However, this type of intentional wrongdoing is that which is "umelated to any

            legitimate economic self-interest" (id., citing Devash v German Am. Capital Corp., 104 AD3d 71,

            77 [1st Dept 2013]). Here, all the evidence suggests that Fashion understood Pony was terminating

           the license agreement so that Pony could relaunch the brand (see Email from Morris Abraham of

           Fashion to Marcel Apfel of Iconix, NYSCEF Doc. No. 218 [stating that he "underst[ ood] that the

           new owners want to take the brand upstairs" and trying to caution Iconix afainst "relaunching the

           brand"]). Regardless of whether Pony breached its license agreement with Fashion, Fashion has

           failed to provide any support for the claim that such breach was in bad faith to get around the

           exculpatory clause or Pony's equitable estoppel defense. Fashion's request for documents relating

           to Genesco's performance under the Genesco license appears to rely on the wholly speculative

           theory that "if Genesco failed to perform its obligations ... and Pony did not terminate that license

           in response, it would tend to prove that Pony favored Genesco" (Motion to Compel Opening

           Papers, p. 12 [emphasis added]). Fashion has provided no support for its suggestion that Genesco's

           work was at all deficient, and this therefore amounts to an improper fishing expedition.

                   The court denies Fashion's motion to compel because there is no claim or defense to which

           the Genesco discovery would be relevant. Further, because Fashion's only purported basis for

           vacating the note of issue is to complete additional discovery related to Genesco, which the court
                                                                                        !
           has denied, the court also denies the motion to vacate the note of issue.    I

                   The court has considered the parties' remaining contentions and found them unavailing.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Fashion Footwear LLC's motion to

           vacate the note of issue (MS 05) is denied; and it is further

             655022/2022 US PONY HOLDINGS, LLC vs. FASHION FOOTWEAR LLC                           Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 005 006

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/01/2024 04:14 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 655022/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 254                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Fashion Footwear LLC's motion to

            compel discovery (MS 06) is denied.

                 04/01/2024
                   DATE

                                   n
           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

             655022/2022 US PONY HOLDINGS, LLC vs. FASHION FOOTWEAR LLC                            Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 005 006

                                                          4 of 4
[* 4]