Court Opinion

ID: 9958743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:35.635594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:40.655806
License: Public Domain

G & Y Maintenance Corp. v 540 W. 48th St. Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31087(U)
                      April 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 652108/2020
                 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.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 652108/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. MELISSA A. CRANE                                            PART                              60M
                                                                                      Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X
                                                                                                  INDEX NO.          652108/2020
             G & Y MAINTENANCE CORP.,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         11/09/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         008
                                                 - V -

             540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP., GLSC 48 SPECIAL
             LLC,CORE CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
             LLC,CHUNG-LIN CHIANG,                                                                        MOTION

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 257, 258, 259, 260,
            261,262,263,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,275,276,277,278
            were read on this motion to/for                                                AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                      This case involves alleged underpayment by a general contractor to a subcontractor. On

            April 8, 2022, this court dismissed plaintiffs claims for account stated, unjust enrichment and

            quantum meruit. It also dismissed the veil-piercing claims against defendant Chiang. These

            dismissals were based on insufficient allegations and statute of limitations. The court did,

            however, sustain the breach of contract cause of action against defendant Core.

                      Plaintiff appealed and, strangely, by motion asked this court to recuse itself (see

            NYSCEF Doc 252 [decision and order, MS 06 and 07]). Plaintiffs bizarre argument in support

            of recusal asserted that the appeal created a conflict of interest for the trial judge. At no time did

            plaintiff address the absurd logical outcome of this argument-that every trial judge would need

            to recuse upon appeal. Then, at oral argument, plaintiffs counsel went so far as to state on the

            record that the trial court's so many "mistakes" reflected bias.

             652108/2020 G&Y MAINTENANCE CORP. vs. 540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP.                                           Page 1 of 10
             Motion No. 008

[* 1]                                                                      1 of 10
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652108/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   On April 20, 2023, the Appellate Division, First Department largely affirmed the decision

            and order that this court rendered the year prior (see 215 AD3d 553). Except for modifying this

            court's dismissal to allow plaintiff to replead alter ego against Chiang by making the dismissal

            without prejudice, the Appellate Division affirmed this court's decision and order resolving MS

            04 (NYSCEF Doc 197 [4/7 /22 decision]). Specifically, the First Department affirmed this

            court's dismissal of the claims for account stated, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit as

            against Core. In addition, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the reasoning of

            this court that the fraud claim duplicated the breach of contract claim (see 215 AD3d at 554).

                   By this point, the note of issue had been filed and the case was on the trial calendar.

            Despite having a decent breach of contract claim and being trial ready, in the fall of 2023,

            plaintiff stopped the case from proceeding to trial and moved to amend to interpose a second

            amended complaint (SAC). The SAC asserts nine causes of action, several of which had been

            dismissed already.

                   Continuing its penchant for bizarre arguments, plaintiff states in its reply brief on the

            motion to amend, that the "First Department ordered this court to conduct further proceedings"

            and carries on about "remittitur" (see NYSCEF Doc 275 [pl' s reply aff, pg 6]). The First

            Department's decision does not mention remittitur even once. Nor did the First Department

            remand for further proceedings. This is because there was no need. The case was already

            proceeding to trial when the Appellate Division rendered its decision. All the Appellate decision

            did was give plaintiff the opportunity to replead. This put the ball in plaintiffs court. Without a

            motion, there was nothing for this court to do. It could not write the amended complaint for

            plaintiff. Therefore, all the talk about "remittitur" is misplaced and irrelevant.

             652108/2020 G&Y MAINTENANCE CORP. vs. 540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP.                        Page 2 of 10
             Motion No. 008

                                                          2 of 10
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652108/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                    The court now discusses each cause of action in the proposed SAC in tum to assess

            whether to allow amendment.

                1. First Cause of Action for Fraud

                    This claim is palpably devoid of merit. The Appellate Division has already affirmed this

            court's dismissal of Plaintiffs fraud claim against Chiang because it duplicated plaintiffs claim

            for breach of contract that the court sustained in part. As both this court and the Appellate

            Division have explained to plaintiff, a promise made with no intention of performing is a breach

            of contract, not fraud. Plaintiffs newly pled fraud claims do nothing to correct this deficiency

            (see Colle Capital Partners LP v Automaton, Inc, 2023 Slip Op 1882 [1st Dept March 19, 2024]

            ["leave to amend the fraud claim should, however, have been denied because this claim, even as

            amended, was duplicative of the breach of sale agreement claim."]).

                   As it did on the motion to dismiss, plaintiff again cites to Sabo v Delman (3 NY2d 155,

            160 [1957]) and its progeny, an old line of cases that are: (1) largely abandoned in this

            department; (2) severely outdated; and (3) no longer good law (see Cougar Audio, Inc. v Reich,

            2000 WL 420546, at *6 [SDNY Apr. 18, 2000] [calling the Sabo line of cases "puzzling" and

            noting "there are numerous Appellate Division cases that state precisely the opposite rule"]; see

            also Papa's-June Music, Inc. v McLean, 921 F Supp 1154, 1160-1161 [SDNY 1996] ["Most

            courts that have subsequently considered the issue have held that a contract claim cannot be

            converted into a fraud claim by the addition of an allegation that the promisor intended not to

            perform when he made the promise."]; [cf New York University v Continental Ins. Co., 87

            N. Y.2d 308, 317 [ 1995] [general allegations that defendant entered into a contract while lacking

            the intent to perform it are insufficient to support claim for fraud]).

                   Here, the allegations surrounding the fraud claim involve only a present promise to

             652108/2020 G&Y MAINTENANCE CORP. vs. 540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP.                        Page 3 of 10
             Motion No. 008

[* 3]                                                      3   of 10
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 652108/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            pay. Consequently, this merely duplicates breach of contract. Plaintiff's allegations of fraud are

            no less duplicative of its breach of contract cause of action now than they were in the prior

            complaint. Moreover, plaintiff's "fraud" claim lacks the necessary specificity, such as what

            exactly Chiang told plaintiff, when he said it, to whom at G& Y he made misrepresentations, etc.

            Accordingly, the first cause of action in the SAC is insufficient. Therefore, court will not allow

            the amendment.

                  2. Second Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

                       The second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is insufficient. It fails to allege

            anything more than an arms-length business transaction. That the parties may have had an

            extensive business history does not elevate this relationship to that of fiduciaries.

                      To the extent the second cause of action purports to interpose a cause of action for a

            constructive trust, it is time barred under Section 77(2) of the lien law that imposes a one-year

            statute of limitations. 1 Plaintiff does not even try to contest that this is the applicable limitations

            period. By plaintiff's own estimate, payment was due at the latest in June 2014. Yet, plaintiff

            did not commence this lawsuit until 2020. This is way too late. Even if Chiang lulled plaintiff

            into a false sense of security by claiming that the owner had not paid Core yet, and even if this

            could toll the statute oflimitations under the lien law, it was incumbent on plaintiff to sue under

            the lien law as soon as it realized. That was certainly more than a year ago. Moreover, only

            paragraph 121 in the SAC' s long and rambling discourse even mentions that Chiang

            misrepresented to plaintiff that the owner had not paid. There is no description of when this was,

            1
              Under the Lien Law, all actions to enforce a trust arising under Article 3-A are governed by Section
            77(2) thereof, which provides, in relevant part, that: [n]o such action shall be maintainable if commenced
            more than one year after the completion of such improvement or, in the case of subcontractors or
            materialmen, after the expiration of one year from the date on which final payment under the claimant's
            contract became due, whichever is later ... "

                652108/2020 G&Y MAINTENANCE CORP. vs. 540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP.                          Page 4 of 10
                Motion No. 008

[* 4]                                                        4   of 10
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 652108/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            who it was said to, etc. Surely plaintiff as the recipient of this false information would at least

            have known to whom Chiang spoke. It was incumbent on plaintiff, at this point in the litigation,

            to plead this information. It did not. Accordingly, the second cause of action is insufficient to

            allow amendment.

                3. Plaintiffs Causes of Action Under the Debtor and Creditor Law

                   Plaintiff has also asserted causes of action under all, or nearly all, of the subsections for

            fraudulent conveyance in the Debtor-Creditor law.

                        A. Third Cause ofAction for Fraudulent Conveyance Under Debtor and Creditor
                           Law§ 273

                    Section 273 ofNY's Debtor and Creditor law states:

                           "Every Conveyance made and every obligation incurred by a person who is or
                           will be thereby rendered insolvent is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to
                           his actual intent if the conveyance is made or the obligation is incurred without
                           fair consideration."

                   Defendants do not contest that the statute of limitations for fraudulent conveyance under

            § 273 is six years from the date of the conveyance. Plaintiff pleads in paragraphs 63 ad 64 of the

            second amended complaint that Chiang made conveyances in late 2014 to Jannat I, LLC and

            Jannat Rockaway that rendered Core unable to pay creditors. Oddly, plaintiff has sued neither

            Jannat entity, so it is difficult to understand how plaintiff plans to have any practical victory with

            this cause of action. Moreover, as plaintiff interposed the SAC in 2023, unless this claim relates

            back to plaintiffs original complaint, it is time barred.

                   Defendant argues there is no relation back because plaintiff never made any sort of

            allegation in the prior complaint about siphoning assets to another entity and therefore this is an

            entirely new claim having nothing to do with the prior claims. However, plaintiff only found out

            about the alleged siphoning to the allegedly related Jannet companies during discovery (see

             652108/2020 G&Y MAINTENANCE CORP. vs. 540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP.                          Page 5 of 10
             Motion No. 008

                                                          5 of 10
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652108/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            Ringel v Ringel, 219 AD3d 1260, 1260-1261 [1st Dept 2023] [allowing plaintiff to assert

            fraudulent conveyance claim in second action where plaintiff was "unaware of the 2012 and

            2015 transfers when the New Jersey actions were commenced"]).

                   In a strikingly similar case, where defendant allegedly shorted payments for the sale of

            goods, the court permitted amendment to add claims for fraudulent conveyance, because they

            related back to the original complaint (see On Glory Enterprises Ltd. v Fashion 88 Ltd., 2004

            WL 513832 at *I [SDNY Mar. 16, 2004] ["We find, however, that the new claims are, in fact,

            related to the old claims, as all these claims revolve around the collectability of the payment

            owed by Fashion 88."]).

                   Here too, the fraudulent conveyance claims revolve around the collectability of payment

            from defendants who allegedly failed to pay plaintiff the full amount plaintiff claims is owed.

            Accordingly, the court allows plaintiff to amend to interpose a claim for Fraudulent Conveyance

            under Debtor and Creditor Law§ 273.

                        B. Fourth Cause ofAction Under Debtor and Creditor Law§ 274

                   This claim is similar to a § 273 claim, except that the conveying company is left with

            unreasonably small capital, rather than insolvent. Thus, this claim stands because it relates back

            to the original complaint. See discussion regarding § 273, supra.

                        C. Fifth Cause of action for Fraudulent Conveyance Under§ 273-a

                   Plaintiff appears to concede that it needs an "unsatisfied judgment" for this claim to

            accrue. Plaintiff could have had a judgment by now, but instead has delayed this case from

            proceeding to trial by interposing this blunderbuss second amended complaint at the last minute

            while on the trial calendar. Without a judgment, concededly, this claim is not ripe. Even if

            plaintiff did not need a judgment, but only the pendency of an action, all plaintiff can point to are

             652108/2020 G&Y MAINTENANCE CORP. vs. 540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP.                        Page 6 of 10
             Motion No. 008

[* 6]                                                     6   of 10
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 652108/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            conveyances in 2014. There was no pending action at that time. Thus, this claim is palpably

            without merit and cannot proceed.

                        D. Sixth Cause ofAction Under Debtor and Creditor Law§ 275

                    This section of the Debtor and Creditor law covers situations where defendants make

            transfers without fair consideration. Again, as the discussion concerning § 273 demonstrates, this

            claim relates back and may continue.

                        E. Seventh Cause ofAction Under Debtor and Creditor Law§ 276

                    This section of the Debtor Creditor Law covers actual fraud. After detailing in the

            complaint aspects of the law related to this section, plaintiff finally gets to the facts. Plaintiff

            baldly states that "Chiang and possibly his partner Wu were the sole shareholders of the

           judgment debtor. No adequacy of consideration was shown, the judgment debtor was aware of

            the judgment creditor's claim, and the judgment debtor is unable to pay the judgment" (Proposed

            SAC at para 161).

                   A violation of this section needs to be pled with particularity (see Board of Managers of

            the Lore Condominium v Gateway IV LLC, 169 AD3d 617, 618 [1st Dept 2019]). Plaintiffs

            attempt to plead fraud under this section is insufficient. First, to plead "no adequacy of

            consideration was shown" is bizarre as it is not defendant's burden on an amended complaint to

            plead lack of consideration. Moreover, the allegations against Wu are nonexistent. Nor do we

            know whether plaintiff is referring to the Jannet transfers or some other transfer. Thus, this

            claim: (1) is not pled with particularity; (2) is haphazard; and (3) is so unclear that it does not put

            defendants on notice of the claims against them. Accordingly, the court will not allow plaintiff

            to plead the seventh cause of action in this form.

               4. Eighth Cause of Action for Violation of Business Corporation Law § 720

             652108/2020 G&Y MAINTENANCE CORP. vs. 540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP.                           Page 7 of 10
             Motion No. 008

[* 7]                                                      7   of 10
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652108/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   A necessary element of this claim is to be a judgment creditor. As plaintiff is not yet a

           judgment creditor and may never become one if it does not stop delaying this case. Accordingly,

            this claim is not yet ripe. The court denies plaintiffs proposed amendment adding it.

                5. Ninth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract

                   The court sustained Plaintiffs cause of action for breach of contract in the last complaint

            way back in 2022. The breach of contract claim that plaintiff now interposes starting at

            paragraph 165 of the proposed second amended complaint is nearly unintelligible. Many of the

            allegations contained in this cause of action, to the extent the court can understand them, appear

            to be a vain attempt to recast the failed fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims. Placing these

            allegations in the middle of a claim for breach of contract only serves to demonstrate how

            duplicative the breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims are of this breach of contract

            claim. Were it not for paragraphs 166 and 167, the breach of contract claim would be lost in the

            morass altogether. However, because of these two paragraphs, the court will allow the breach of

            contract claim to proceed on this pleading. The balance of the paragraphs in this cause of action

            will not go forward.

                6. Claims Against Defendant Wu

                   Despite allowing certain aspects of the SAC to proceed, the allegations against Chiang's

            wife, Ms. Wu are completely insufficient. There is no sense of the role she played, if any. There

            is certainly no sufficient allegation that she sent money to either Jannet entity. Plaintiffs

            allegations against her are impossible to discern. Accordingly, no claim can proceed against Wu

            on these allegations.

               7. Defendant's Cross Motion for Sanctions

             652108/2020 G&Y MAINTENANCE CORP. vs. 540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP.                         Page 8 of 10
             Motion No. 008

[* 8]                                                     8   of 10
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 652108/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 279                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                     Defendants assert that they are prejudiced from the delay in seeking amendment. The

            court cannot understand how this could be the case. Defendant could always be sued later for

            fraudulent conveyance once there is a judgment under Debtor and Creditor law § 273-a or

            comparable statute. If anything, the prejudice from delay is to plaintiff who has lost its in place

            in line for trial.

                     Given this decision, the cross motion for sanctions is obviously denied. The court has

            considered the parties' remaining contentions and finds them unavailing.

                     Accordingly, it is

                     ORDERED that the motion to interpose a second amended complaint is granted in part to

            allow the 3rd , 4th , 6th , and 9th causes of action to proceed against defendant Chiang and Core

            only; and it is further

                     ORDERED that plaintiff shall have 30 days from thee-filed date of this decision and

            order to file a second amended complaint consistent with this decision (strikethrough font is

            fine); and it is further

                     ORDERED that defendant Chiang and Core shall answer the second amended complaint

            within 30 days after plaintiff files it; and it is further

                     ORDERED that pre-motion conferences are mandatory for all applications, including

            orders to show cause and cross motions; and it is further

                     ORDERED THAT the parties shall attend a conference on April 10, 2024 at noon over

            Microsoft teams. The conference will be on the record.

                      4/1/2024
                       DATE                                                         MELISSA A. CRANE, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                □ CASE DISPOSED                   0   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                       □ GRANTED           □ DENIED      0   GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER

             652108/2020 G&Y MAINTENANCE CORP. vs. 540 WEST 48TH ST. CORP.                            Page 9 of 10
             Motion No. 008

[* 9]                                                        9 of 10