Court Opinion

ID: 9965588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 20:08:34.65139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:17.765685
License: Public Domain

Real World Holdings LLC v 393 W. Broadway Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31516(U)
                     April 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160732/2015
                  Judge: Lyle E. Frank
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. 160732/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 620                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LYLE E. FRANK                                              PART                              11M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          160732/2015
             REAL WORLD HOLDINGS LLC,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         12/22/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         017
                                                 -v-
             393 WEST BROADWAY CORPORATION, TIMOTHY
             CLARK, JOAN HARDIN, JAMES SCHAEUFELE,
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             MARIACRISTINA PARRAVACINI, JOHN WOTOWICZ,
             JANE SINCLAIR, ANTHONY FAGLIONE,                                                            MOTION

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 017) 601, 602, 603, 604,
            605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       DISMISSAL                        .

            Background

                      Plaintiff, Real World Holdings LLC, and defendants, 393 West Broadway Corporation

            Timothy Clark, Joan Hardin, James Schaufele, Mariacristina Parravicini, John Wotowicz, Jane

            Sinclair, and Anthony Faglione are involved in a dispute concerning Plaintiff’s cooperative

            apartment. In its November 2023 decision, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their

            Complaint. In turn, Plaintiff filed its Fifth amended complaint on November 28, 2023. Defendant

            now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s twenty fourth and twenty fifth causes of action. Plaintiff

            opposes.

            Discussion

                I.         Conversion

                      Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s cause of action for conversion, contending

            Plaintiff’s new conversion claim is merely a replica of its prior conversion claim, previously

             160732/2015 REAL WORLD HOLDINGS LLC vs. 393 WEST BROADWAY CORPORATION                                   Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 017

                                                                           1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160732/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 620                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            dismissed by this Court in its November 2023 order. Defendants further argue that regardless, the

            new conversion claim is duplicative of its causes of action for breach of contract, and therefore

            dismissal is required by law. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts the new conversion claim is entirely

            different than its previous claim, as it is predicated upon a new legal theory and based on facts

            outside the scope of its breach of contract claim.

                     The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s Twenty Fourth Cause of Action in its

            Fifth Amended Complaint is duplicative of its Breach of Contract claims. Plaintiff’s cause of

            action for conversion is plead as follows,

                            467. RWH repeats and realleges all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
                            468. Defendants’ conduct as described above constitutes a wrongful exercise of
                     dominion or control over property of the plaintiff. Defendant’s conduct has been, is and
                     continues to be intentional and without authority.
                            469. Defendant’s conduct has interfered with, and is in defiance of, plaintiff’s
                     superior possessory right in the property, and has deprived plaintiff of its rights of use
                     and possession.

                     Here, Plaintiff fails to identify which conduct in its allegations make up its claim for

            conversion, separate from that of its claims for breach of contract. Therefore, the claim is

            duplicative of its breach of contract claim, even in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.

            Moreover, the failure to plead with specificity constitutes a failure to provide notice to Defendant

            of the conduct for which it is alleged to have caused a conversion of Plaintiff’s property.

               II.      Defamation

                     As a preliminary matter, Defendants contend Plaintiff’s defamation claim is barred by the

            applicable Statute of Limitations. Specifically, Defendant proffers that as the alleged defamatory

            statement was made originally made in 2021, Plaintiff’s November 2023 is untimely under New

            York’s one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims. In opposition, Plaintiff contends the

            claim is timely under the republication doctrine, arguing Defendants’ reiteration of the statement

             160732/2015 REAL WORLD HOLDINGS LLC vs. 393 WEST BROADWAY CORPORATION                  Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 017

                                                            2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160732/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 620                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            with additional content and to a new audience in 2022, qualifies as a republication, therefore

            restarting the statute of limitations and making the claim timely.

                      It is undisputed that under New York State law the statute of limitations for a defamation

            action is one year. See CPLR 215 (3); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365, 368 (2002). The statute

            begins to run on the first date that the publication is made and expires one year from this date.

            See Biaggi v. O'Flynn, 216 A.D.3d 484, 484 (1st Dept 2023); Gregoire v GP Putnam's Sons, 298

            N.Y. 119 (1948). However, New York Courts have carved out an exception which restarts the

            statute of limitations when the statement has been “republished.” To constitute a republication,

            the plaintiff must show the subsequent publication was intended to and in fact did reach a new

            audience, the second publication was made on an occasion distinct from the initial one, and the

            republished statement has been modified in form or in content, and the defendant has control

            over the decision to republish. Martin v. Daily News L.P., 990 N.Y.S.2d 473 (1st Dept 2014)

            (internal quotations and citations omitted). Therefore, a republication which retriggers the period

            of limitations, occurs upon a “separate aggregate publication from the original, on a different

            occasion, which is not merely a delayed circulation of the original edition.” Firth v. State, 98

            N.Y.2d 365 (2002) (internal citations omitted).

                      When considering a motion to dismiss based upon CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the court must

            accept the alleged facts as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable

            inference, and determine whether the facts alleged fit into any cognizable legal theory. Leon v.

            Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (1994). On a motion to dismiss the court “merely examines the adequacy

            of the pleadings”, the court “accept as true each and every allegation made by plaintiff and limit

            our inquiry to the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s claim.” Davis v Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262, 268

            (2014).

             160732/2015 REAL WORLD HOLDINGS LLC vs. 393 WEST BROADWAY CORPORATION                 Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 017

                                                           3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160732/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 620                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

                   Viewing the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the

            alleged defamatory statement in 2022 constitutes a republication, therefore Plaintiff’s cause of

            action is timely. First, Plaintiff has made a showing that the September 2021 statement and the

            December 2022 statement contain both formatting and substantive differences. The 2021

            statement includes a “Cash Balance” chart on one page, and then a separate page which contains

            a list of arrears, including a notation stating Plaintiff owes arrears to the building in a sum of

            $36,000. In contrast, while the December 2022 the “Cash Balance” chart reappears, however it is

            accompanied on the same page by a second chart which list plaintiff’s arrears in an amount of

            $148,975.03.

                   Here, not only was the 2022 document formatted differently than the 2021 the document,

            the amount of arrears also allegedly owed by Plaintiff is substantively different. Defendants

            contend that despite these changes, as the statements were qualitatively the same, there is no

            republication. For this proposition, Defendants rely on the First Department’s decision in Rare 1

            Corp. v. Moshe Zwiebel Diamond Corp., 13 Misc. 3d 279, 282 (1st Dept 2006). However, the

            facts in Rare are distinguishable from the instant case. There, the Court found that comments

            posted on private website, when provided to users on request, did not constitute a republication

            for the purposes of extending the statute of limitations. Here, as explained above, the statement

            was a modification of a previous statement with changes, not a dissemination of the 2021

            statement at a later date. Defendants contend that although the amount of arrears appearing in the

            December 2022 statement is different than the 2021 statement, the arrears statements in both

            instances represent the same qualitative measure, that Plaintiff was behind on its maintenance

            obligation. The Court finds this argument unavailing. At this early stage, affording Plaintiff all

             160732/2015 REAL WORLD HOLDINGS LLC vs. 393 WEST BROADWAY CORPORATION                   Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 017

                                                           4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 160732/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 620                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            favorable inferences, the statement that Plaintiff is in arrears of an amount over double that of the

            original amount is not qualitatively equal.

                   Additionally, Defendants contend the December 2022 statement was not distributed to a

            new audience. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges Defendants distributed the document not

            only to the Coop, but to lending institutions in connection with mortgage applications. Plaintiff

            further alleges the documents provided by Defendants show a different distribution list including

            a different managing agent. As such, taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true in determining the

            sufficiency of the complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the statement reached a new

            audience, at the control of the Defendants. Therefore, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the

            December 2022 statement satisfies the elements of a republication.

                   Next, Defendant’s argue that regardless of the statute of limitations, Plaintiff’s

            defamation claim must be dismissed for failure to plead a necessary element of a defamation

            claim, falsity of the statement. The First Department’s recent decision in Stringer v. Kim is on

            point. In Stringer, the First Department reversed the lower court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s

            defamation claim, finding Plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether the Defendant was

            involved in the republication of a defamatory statement. Stringer v. Kim, 2024 N.Y. App. Div.

            LEXIS 2268 (1st Dept 2024). Here, the Court finds that in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,

            there is an issue of fact as to whether the statements at issue are false. Defendant contends the

            documentary evidence shows Plaintiff is as a matter of fact in arrears. Plaintiff contends it is not

            in arrears as the Building never issued Plaintiff their shares to the corporation, in breach of the

            parties’ contract. This dispute is at the heart of this case. As such, the Court finds there is an

            outstanding factual issue at this time, deeming dismissal of Plaintiff’s defamation claim

            inappropriate.

             160732/2015 REAL WORLD HOLDINGS LLC vs. 393 WEST BROADWAY CORPORATION                   Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 017

                                                           5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 160732/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 620                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

                    Lastly, the Court turns to Defendants’ argument that regardless of the statute of

            limitations or veracity of the claim, Defendants possess a qualified privilege for such statements.

            Defendants argue that under New York law, the statements at issue are protected by a qualified

            privilege as their communications were made to persons who have some common interest in the

            subject matter. While New York Courts have held this privilege applicable to communications

            between members of a board of governors of a tenants' association, this privilege may be

            defeated where plaintiff can show the Defendant acted with malice in making such statement or

            where the statements were made with a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity.

            Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 438 (1992). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently

            alleges Defendants acted with malice in making their statements in an effort to harm Plaintiff’s

            reputation. Therefore, with respect to Plaintiff’s cause of action for defamation, Defendant’s

            motion to dismiss is denied.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUDGED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; and

            it is further

                    ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cause of action for conversion is dismissed.

                     4/29/2024
                       DATE                                                          LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRANTED             DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             160732/2015 REAL WORLD HOLDINGS LLC vs. 393 WEST BROADWAY CORPORATION                    Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 017

                                                             6 of 6
[* 6]