Court Opinion

ID: 9945550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:39.125459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.934552
License: Public Domain

Prosperum Capital Partners LLC v Pamelas List LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30574(U)
                   February 20, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 520945/2022
                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 02/23/2024 04:35 PM                                                              INDEX NO. 520945/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                                                                                               At an IAS T ehn; Part 52 of
                                                                                               the Supreme Court of the
                                                                                               State of New York, held in
                                                                                               and for the County of
                                                                                               Kings, at the Courthouse,
                                                                                               at Civic Center, Brooklyn,
                                                                                               New York, on the 20th day
                                                                                               ofFebruary 2024

            HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA
            -- ·-- ·----· --· --------. ----- . ---------- ··--· ---· . ------· - ·---· ---X
            PROSPERUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC
            DBA ARSENAL FUNDING,

                                                   Plaintiff,                                  DECISION & ORDER
                                                                                               Index No. 520945/2022
                                       -against-

            P AMELAS LIST LLC DBA PAMELAS LIST
            AND PAMELA LYNN PAULSON,

                                                   Defendarits.
            ------------------.... -- --------.. ---------- --------. -. --. --------·X
                   Recitation in accordance with CPLR2219 (a) of the papers considered on the
            notice of motion filed on August IO, 2023, by Prospetum Capital PartnetsLLC D/B/A
            Arsenal Funding (hereinafterthe plaintiff) for an order pursuant to CPLRJ212granting
            summary judgment in its favor on its causes of action for breach of contract, breach ofa
            guaranty agreement and attorney;s fees against Pamelas List LLC dba Pamelas List and
            Pamela Lynn Paulson (hereinafter the defendants). The motion is unopposed .

            ..Notice of Motion
            -Statement of Material Facts
            -Affirmationin Support
            -Affidavit in Support
                   Exhibits A-E
            -Meiuorandwn oflawin support

            BACKGROUND

                     On Jt1ly 22, 2022, plaintiff c91nmenced the instant action by filing a .summons and

            verified complaint ,vith the Kings County Clerk's office (KCCO). Ort July 27, 2022;

                                                                      1 of 6
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 04:35 PM                                             INDEX NO. 520945/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

             defendants interposed and filed ajointverifie d answer with the KCCO.

                    The verified complaint alleges thirty-three allegations of fact insupport of three

             denominated causes of action. The first is for breach of con.tract, the second is for breach

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

            the agreement.

                    The verified complaint alleges the following salient facts; Pursuant to a

            receivable purchase agreement{hereinafter the agreement) and personaLguaranty dated

            April 8, 2022, the plaintiff purchased from theLLC defendant its future accounts
                                .       .                                                       .

            receivable having a face value of$149,000. 00.

                   On or about April 8, 2022, the LLC defendant, in considen1tion of the sum of

            $100,000.00, sold, assigned, and transferred to plaintiff eight (8%) percent ofits future

            sales proceeds, up to an aggregate amount of $149,000.00. By the.agreement, Pamela

            Lynn Paulson executed a personal guarantee ifthe LLC defendant defaulted on the

            agreement..

                   On June29, 2022, theLLC defendant defaulted under the agreement by failing to

            remitits sales proceeds to the plaintiff as provided for in the agreement. In total, the LLC

            defendant remitted the amount of $58,237.50 in accordance with the agreement, leaving a

            balance of $90,762.50 remaining due and owing. Pamela Lynn Paulson did not pay the

            amount due. although duly demanded. The plaintiffclai1ns that there is now due and

            payable to plaintiff,by the defendants, the principal balance sum of$98,857.5 0, as well

           as attorney's fees of $22,690.63 resultingin a total sum of $121,548, 13.

                                                       2 of 6
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 04:35 PM                                               INDEX NO. 520945/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

             LAW AND Al>PLICA.TION

                    The defendants did not _submit opposition. to the.instant motion .. However, a

            summary judgment motion should not be grarited merely because the.party-against whom

            judg1rtent is smight failed to submit papers irt oppositipn to the motion, i.e. defimlted

            '.(Liberty Taxi Mgt., 1nc. v Gfnchetman, 32 Ab3-d 276~ 27tLn [t"-st Dept 2006], ·citing

            .Verm(mt Teddy Sear Co., v 1-800 B.eargram .Co., 373 F3d 24t;_.244 [2d Cit 20.04] (''the

            failure to oppose a motion for summary judgrhentalone-d oes·not justify the granting of·

            sUnimary judglnent. Instead, the ... court 1nust stiU assess whethet the 1noving party has

            fulfilled its burden of-demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of m~teiial fa¢t and its

            entitlement tojudgrnentas a matter of law'']; see Cughiiv System Lumber Co.? Inc., 11 i

            AD2d 114, j 15 [lstDept 1985]).

                   It is weil established tp:al summary judgment .ni_ay be -granted only when no triable

            issue-of fact exists (Alvarezv ProspectHospit at 68NY.?d 320,.324 [19-86]). The bui;den

            is upon. the moving party· to make a pri ma :faci e showing that he or she is entitled to

            srnrtmary judgment as a rriatter:of law by presenting evidence in admissibie form

            demonstrating the abs.e.n~e of material facts (Giuffrida v Citibank,• 100 NY2d 72, 8l

            "[2003)).

                   A failure to make that showing requires the dental ofthe summary judgment

            moti9n, regardless of the adequacy ofthe:·opposing.p apers (Ayotte· v Gervasio, &1 NY2d

            I 062, 1064 [ 1993])-. If a prima facie showh1g has been made, the:burden sbi fts to the

            opposing_paft)' to produce evidentiary proof suffic_ientto estabHs:h the exi~tence of

            material iss:ues of fact (Alvarez, 68 NY2d at" 324}.

                                                       3 of 6
[* 3]
   FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 04:35 PM                                                           INDEX NO. 520945/2022
   NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                                 Pursuant. to CPLR 3212 (b)~ a· court will grant a· irtotion fot sum111aty j:udgnient

                          upon adetermination that the movant1 s papers-justify holding, as a inatter of law, that.

                          there is .no defense to the cause a faction or that the cause ofaction or defense has no

                          merit. Futt:hermore, all of the evidence ·mustbe viewed in theJight ni.ost favorable to the

                          opponent of the motion .(Marine, Midland Bank v Dino & At.tie.'s Autorru;ztic Tra1Js1nission

                         Co., 16.8 AD2d 610 [2d Dept.1.9.901).

                                 In the c0;se at ba:r, the only sworn testimony submitted by the plaintiffin·-support

                         of the .motion was an affirmati011 of Jeffrey Parella, its courisel{hereinafter Parella)i and

                         an affidavit of Marlen Kruzhkov~ its irtanagiilg
                                                            .          ..
                                                                          meinber.(her.einafter··!\ruzhkov). PatellE(s
                                                                              .

                         affirmat_ion demonstrated no personaLknowledge of any of the transactional fa:cts alle_ged

                         in the complaint. An attorney's affinnation that is not based upon personaflmowledge is

                         of no ·probative cir evidentiary sigriificance (Nerayojf v Khorshad, 16 8 AD3d ·866, 867

                         [2d Dept 2019-1,_ citing Warrington v Ryder Truck RentaZ, Inc.,., 35 AD3d 4-55, 456 [2d

                        Dept 2006]). Parella1 s affirmation states that the facts in support of the niotion are,

                         contained in the affidavitofKruzhkov.

                                Neithei."the verified cmnplaint _1101; tbe affidavit o.fKruzhkov averred that the

                        agreed-.upon purchase_price of$IOO,OOO.OO fot the defendaI)t's . future r~ceivables was

                         actually paidto the LLC defendant. Paragraph eight·ofthevetified complaint.stated the

                        following-:

                               ·"P.laintiffpaid B1,1s_io~ss De.fend::trit. the Purchase Price of $1 QO, 000.00 minus
                               .agreed liport fees listed on Pla,intiffs_Exhibit A"·page: 14 at,r 3, and a sum of
                                                                                  11

                                $68,337.50 for Merchantis previo1,1s open balance      on   another merchant cash
                                agreement(Pleas e refer to.Exhibit B)., thu:,;; fulfilling i1$obligation op. the
                                Agreement.''

                                                                     4 of 6
[* 4]
-~----·····-········-·······
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 04:35 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 520945/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                   Paragraph fifteen ofKruzhkov's affidavitstated the following:

                   "'·'On April 8, 2022, Plc1.intiff paid .Business Defendant the- Purchase Price of
                   $100,000.00 minus-agreed upon ofigirtationfeeo f$6,000.00 (see Plaintiffs
                   Exhibit 11 A 1' atpage: 14,,r 3), thus fulfilling its· obligation. on the f\.greeinent. See.
                   Plainti:ff-s Exhibit 11B 11 in support ofSunimary Judgm:ertt Motiort;p

                    Kru?:hQv averred that_ annexeq as exhibit B to.-the motion was ·proof of the

            _ plaintiffs fundiQ.g of the purcha,se price. The document, however, contained three

            redactions, one of them being to the right of the word balance. The document was not

            authenticated-.. Nor did. Kruzhkov explain how to read it. It was not prob~tive. Moreover;

            itwa!i'not consistent wi.t)l the allegation of fact in the verified complaint orin Kruzhov~s

            affidavit pertaining to the funding of the purchase price. In fact_, the verified complaint

            and Kruzhov's affidavit were inconsistent with each other.

                   The essential e.leiliertts. of a cause of action to r~cover <:lam ages for bi:e.ach of

            contract are the existence ofa contract, the plaintiff s--_petformance pursuant to the

            contract, the defendant's breach ofits contractual obligations, and damages resulting; from

            the breach (see Ci'uz v Cruz, 211 AD3d 805,-"807 [2d Dept 2023]).

                   to prevail on the instant motion,_ it was incumbent upon the plaintiffto prove
            each of these elements as ,a matter of law. The,piainti.ffpro vided conflicting evidence:.and

            failed to demonstrate:that itperformed its part of the agreement by paying the defendants

           the.agreed-upon purchase price. Consequently,the :-plaintiffclid not.meet its burden of

            demonstrating as a matter of law that the defendants breached the, =agreem~nt. In.asrnuch

            as the plaintiff did not make a prim a facie showing that the LLC defendant: breached the

            agreement, the obligation of the guarantor was not triggered. As a result) the plaintiff

                                                          5 of 6
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 04:35 PM                                          INDEX NO. 520945/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

            also failed to show that the guarantor breached the agreement.

                  Inasmuch, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants breached the

            agreement, the third cause ofaction for attorney's fees based ona breach of the

            agreement is also unsupported, The motion is therefore denied without regard to the

            sufficiency or lack of opposing papers (Cugini vSystemLbr. Co., 111 A.D.2d ll4j 115

            [1st Dept 1985]).

            CONCLUSION

                  The motion by Prosperum Capital Partners LLCD/B/A Arsenal Funding for an

            order pursuant to CPLR 3212. granting summary judgment in its favor.onits·causes of

            action for breach of contract, breach of a guaranty agreement, and attorney;s fees as

            against Pamelas List LLC dba Pamelas List and Pamela Lynn Paulson is denied.

                  The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

            ENTER:
                                            ~~~~
                                                                      J.S.C.

                                                     6 of 6
[* 6]