Court Opinion

ID: 9942020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 14:07:54.581804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:38.585915
License: Public Domain

Brighton Bldr. LLC. v
           Bedford Landscape Contrs., LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30475(U)
                   February 13, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 510225/2023
                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 02/13/2024 10:02 AM                                                                INDEX NO. 510225/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF ·THE STATE OF· NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8
            -----          --- ------. --- .----- .---                       --- ----x
           BRIGHTON BUILDER LLC. ,
                                                                        Plaintiff,                 Decision arid order

                                       against -                                                I.nde¥ No.. sI:Q.225/2023

           BEDFORD LANDSCAPE C0NT~CTORS, LLC,
           LEV FELDMAN, and PLAY SOLUTIONS, -INC.,
                                                                        Defe·nctants·,              February 13, 20·'24
           - - - - - · - - - - - - - · ·. ·. --·-----·--· -   .----: - - - - - - - - . ·.---K

           P.RESENT: HOM·. LE_OI:il RUCHE.LSMAN                                                   -Motio:n Seq.. .#2 & .#J

                    "The p1a.intitf. has ·+noveq. _purs_uant to _CPLR §2221 seeking to

           reargue a decision and order dated October 10, .2023.

           Specifically , the ,plaintiff seeks to reargue the dismissal of

           ,_coµnt·$ four, five, six ._a.nd s·eyen ·on the grounds no defendant ever

           moved seeking their dismissa1.                                 The. defendant .Feldman and. Play

           ·solutions Inc., ha.s cross-mov·ect pursuant to CPLR §3-211 s-e·eking to

           disrni_si;; those. very cat1se-s of action-~                             Tile motions have been

           op·posecl respectively .                       Papers were submitted by the parties and

           .a..fte.i;: .. reviewing ·a.11 the.· .arguments this q.0J..1rt n..ow makes the

           following determinatio n.

                     A,s recorded in a prior order, ·on· October 15, :2 02 0 the

           .defendant Bec;iford, a construction. c:ompani hireq by the C"i.t.y of

           New York to perform various work throughout the city, hire.ct the

           pl-aintiff .as a· subGontactor .                            s·ome payments were made to tbe

           plaintiff, however,- the plaintiff as$erts th_ey are still owed

           $662,695.17 for work performed.                                  The plaintiff asserted causes of

           acti·on for breach o"f contr?'ct, quantur:n me.l:'.µit;                                  c6.nve:rs·.io:h, ·breach

                                                                       1 of 6
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 10:02 AM                                      INDEX NO. 510225/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           of fiduci.ar y duty, breach of good faith and fair dea.lihg .and the

           faithles:; :; servant d;octrine .         The court di•smisEr ed them all except.

           for the hreach of contrac t claim.                The plainti ff has now move.ct

           seeking to reargue that determi nation.                As noted, the det·enda nt

           has oppos~d and has cross-mo ved.

                                                Conclus ions of Law

                   A motion to· rea:rgue must 1Je bas. ed upon the fa.ct ·the court

           overlook ed ox misappre hended. ·fact or: law o.t for sO:m.e other reason

           mistake nly Hrrived .at in its earlier decisiQn (Deutsch e Bank

           Nationa l Tru'st Co., v. Russo, 170 AD.3d ·9:52, 96 f\iYSjd .617 [2d
            De pt . ,   2 01 9 ] ) .

                    The motion         $eekihg reargum ent is granted.      Upon Teargum ent

            the court will necessa rily examine the causes of action :n··ow

            soctijht to.be di$miss~ d~

                    The four causes of action sought to be reargued and

            dismisse d are only against defenda nt . Feldman arid must be ana:lyzed

            in that vein.

                    It    is well. settled. that to establis h a claim - for conversi on.
            the party must show the lega:-1. right to an identifi able item or

            items artd that the other party has exercise d unautho rized control

            a,. nd own~.rsh.: ip over tb.e i terns    (Fioren. ti v ..Centra'l Emerqen cy

            Physicia ns, PLLC, 305 .AD2d 4.53, 762 l'JYS2d 402 [2d Dept., 2003]).

            A.s t}Te Court o.f Appeals explaine d            "a c.onve.rs ion ta~es place w)1en

                                                         2

                                                      2 of 6
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 10:02 AM                             INDEX NO. 510225/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           someone, intention ally and without authority , assumes or

           exercises control over personal property belonging to someone

           else, interferin g with that person's right of possession ... Two

           key elements of conversion are (1) plaintiff 's possessor y right

           or interest in the property ... and. ( 2) def end ant' s dominion over.

           the property or interferen ce with it, in derogatio n of

           plaihtiff ' s tightsi' (see, Colavito v. New York Organ Donor

           Network Inc.,     8 NY3d 43, 827 NYS2d 96 [2006]).      Therefore , where

           a defendant "interfere d with plaintiff 's right to posse.ss th.e

           property"      (Hillcres t Homes, LLC v. Albion Mobile Homes, Inc., 117

           AD3d 1434, 984 NYS2d 755 [4 th Dept., 20141) a conversio n has

           occurred.

                    However, merely alleging a debt that is owed does riot

            establish a cause of .action for conversion (see, Double Alpha

            Inc., v. Mako Partners L.P., 2000 WL 1036034 [S.D.N.Y. 2000]).

            As the court noted in Traffix Inc., v. Herold, 269 F.Supp2d 263

            [S.D.N.Y; 2003] "a conversion action cannot be predicate d on an

            equitable intere 9 t   or a   mere breach of contractu al obligation /I

            (id).      Indeed; the entire conversion claim :Ls premised upon the

            allegation there is an unpaid balance due the_plain tiff.

            However, conversio n is only applicable where there is an

            "identifia ble fund and an obligation to return or otherwise treat

            in a particula r manner the specific fund in questio.n"

            (Manufact urers Hanover Trust Company v. Chemical Bank, 160 AD2d

                                                   3

                                                3 of 6
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 10:02 AM                               INDEX NO. 510225/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           113, 559 NYS2d 704 [1 st Dept;, 1990]).        In this case the.re is

           me.rely ari outstandin g debt owed to the plaintiff .        That does not

           establish the claim of conversion .         Consequen tly, the motion

           seeking to dismiss this claim is granted.

                  The next causes of action allege breaches 6f a fiduciary

           duty and brea'ches 6£ good faith and fair dealing against Lev

           Feldman an employee of the plaintiff .         These claims are distinct

           from any claims for breach of contract since they involve a

           party, Feldman, that is riot accused o.f breaching the contract at

           all.

                  It is well settled that an employee owes a duty of good

           faith and loyalty to ari employer in the performan ce of the

           employee' s duties     (McKinnon ·Doxsee Agency Inc., v. Gallina, 187

           AD3d 7 33, 132 NYS2d 144 [2d De)?t., 2020]) .       Further, an employee

           maintains a fiduciary duty to an employer.          As the court noted in

           Nielson :Co.   (US l LLC v. Success Systems Inc., 2013 WL 1197857

            [S. D. N. Y. 2013] "as a matter bf law, art employee .owes a fiduciary

           duty to his employer and is prohibited from acting iri any manner

            inconsiste nt with his agency or trust and is at all times bound

            tb exercise the utmost faith and loyalty iri the performan ce of

            his dutie-s" (id) .   Likewise, the cause of action for a breach of

            implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is premised upon

            parties to a cpnt:r:act e'i's.ercisin g good faith while performin g the

            terms of an agreement (Van Valkenburg h Nooger        &   'Neville v. Hayden

                                                4

                                              4 of 6
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 10:02 AM                                    INDEX NO. 510225/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           -Publishing Co., Jd. NY2d 34, 3-~o NY$-2d 32·9 [197.2]).

                 ·A:t ttiis stage of the l;Lt.igatiort, the complaint adequately

           'alleges that Feldman br·eached thes.e dllties to the plaintiff.

           'i'here;.:fore, upon reargµm_ent the rnotion $-eeking to dismiss .thes·e.

           causes of action as to Feldman is denied.

                 Lastly, the faithless .servant doctrine was fi·rst coiried in.

           Herman v. Branch M◊tor .Exores·-s Co .. ·, 67 .Mi.sc2-d 44 4, 323_ NYS-2d 7 94

            [Civil Court of   the City of New York, 1971] where the court
           stated "a ·servant who is f aithles:s to his master on -Tues.d~y

           thereby forfeits the wages he ear.n.ed on Monday;' (id).               'rhe

           doctrine sti3.tes that ari agent who owes .a duty. of fidelity to a

           principal ·a:nci is: _.faithless in that ·duty thereby forf.:ei ts·

           compensation due. (see, Phansalkar v. Anderson Weinroth                & Company

           L. i?. , 34 4 F3d 18 4 [2d C:ir. 2003] ) .    Further, pursuant to· the

           doctr·i.ne the employer is entitled to a return of a;ny compens,a-tion

           paid. to an employee, during the pe.ri.od or her disloyalty (CARCO

           G·RoUP, Inc., v. Macoriachy, 71.8 F3.d· "72 [2d. Cir.. 2013] ,. see, al·s-o,

           Torres v.    Gristede's ogerat:ing Co:i::p.,    628 F.$'lJ.pp2'd 447   [S.D.N.Y.

            2008 JJ •

                  The Verified -Complaint conta-.tn_s sµff'icie;nt allegati·orts the

            defendant Feldman forfe.ited his compensation by acting in a

            fa.i t.hless manner.   Thus, the Ve·rifie.d_ .Complaint -asser.ts the

            defend.ant imp_r.ope:r:ly too,k hegat_ive actions. again.st the plain.tiff

            (.see, Verified Complaint,       '.!['.![32,33 SISl13-15 of Gaunt Five,

                                                   5

                                                5 of 6
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 10:02 AM                           INDEX NO. 510225/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

           improperly so numpered [NYSCEF Doc. No. 1]).     While those

           allegations will be the subject of discovery, i:l.t this stage of

           the litigation they adequately allege the elements of the

           faithless servant doctrine.      Further discovery will surely narrow

           ans sharpen these issues.      Therefore, the motion seeking to

           dismiss that cause of action is also denied.      Thus, upon

           reargument causes of action:, five, six and seven against Feldman
           are reinstated.

                   So ordered.

                                 ENTER:

           DATED: February 13, 2024
                  Brooklyn N.Y.              Hon. Leon Ruchelsman
                                             JSC

                                               6

                                             6 of 6
[* 6]