Court Opinion

ID: 9959940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:13:30.761753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.405692
License: Public Domain

Bedessee v Bedessee
               2024 NY Slip Op 31154(U)
                      April 4, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 507184/2022
                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 04/04/2024 02:55 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 507184/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 195                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF ·THE STATE OF NEi'lf YORK
           COUNTY OF KI.NGS : CIVIL TERM.: COMMERCIAL PART 8
           -- ------- ---- . --------- - -------------x
           NAWSHAD BEDESSEE·,
                                                            Plaintiffs,_           .Decb=.don .a"rid order

                             ..;. ag:ainst"""'

           VERMAN BEDESSEE, RAYMAN BEDESSEE,
           INVOR BEDESSEE; BEDESSEE IMPORTS J:N.C.,
           ANDRE.W BEDES'SEE ·CORP. , .J3-EOESSEE HOLDINGS.
           INC., BEDESSEE EAST-WEST INDIAN FOOD, INC.
           D/B/A BEDESSEE S,PORTING. GOODS__, and
           OTHER ··xyz C0RPQRAT.ION$. 1-10,
           the true names of. which are unknown
           to the Plaintiff,                                                              Aprii 4, 2024
                                                             De.f'endant;
           - - - - . --·---·--·------ -•------·--· .· - - - - - ·----· -    .. X
           PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                                 MCiti.on Seq. #7

                 The plaintiff has moved seeking to dismiss numerous affirmative

           defense,3 pursuant to CPl...R §:,3"2·11.               The def.endants have opposed the

           motion...     Papers WE;).re s:ubmitt,ed by a.11 parties .arid after reviewing

           all     the     arguments,            this       court     now      .makes   th_e    following

           determination .

                  A.s recorded in prior orders, the plaintiff arid the de.f endants

           ate    all    br'others         and   all    -~fssume"d     control     of   their    father'··s

           busint;?sses "i,lpon hi_s cie·ath in -2017.                The. complaint allege.s._, among

           other improprietie s, that defendant, Verman Bedessee the managing

           member      of the business, is divertin.g bu·-siness a.-sset.s to his othe_;r
           Wholly       owned    b.usine-sses       anc:i    tq    pay     personal     expenses.        The

           compiaint further alleges the defendant utilizes employees of the

           entities to work for his o:wn wholly owned compani·e;; the_,re_py ruining

           the financial stability of the defenda_i1t entities.                           The complaint

           alleges       .causes·     of     action         for   a    declaratory       j udg.em:ent,    an

                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2024 02:55 PM                                                        INDEX NO. 507184/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 195                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           accounting,             br: ea-ch   of    f i du,cia ry       duty,      . canst z,uct i ve     trust-,

           conversion,._ corporate waste ~nd unjust enric)l.ment.                                 The de.fendant

           answered          and     a·sserted      various         counter.claim s         and     affirmative

           defens·e$.         The p-la..;intif-f .has now .moveq. seeking to dismiss, ·many o·f

           the affirmative defenses.                   As noted the motion is opposed.

                                                 Conclu·sions· 'of Law

                    It is well settled that upon a motion to dism;i.ss the coµrt

           must d.ete.r:rni1;1e, acceptirj.g the ·alleg_ atioris of -the plt?ading_· a-s true,

           whethe.r the party can succeed upon any reason,3.ble view of those

           facts       (Davids v.         State,    159 .A,:Ci3d "987,           74 NYS3d 28 8       [2d Dept.,

           ..2.0i8 J ) •     F.urtller., _all the allegations             in the. pleading arer cie;emed
           true and all reasonable irt:ference;s may be drawn in favo-r of the
           p.arty          that    _asserted     the    ·pleai::ffng      (Dunleavy         v.     Hilton     Hat.l

           ·Apart:me_nts Co.; LLC, 14 AD3d 4.7 9, 789 NY.S2.d 16-4 [2d.. Dept., 2 005) ) .

                    The second a.ffirmative defense merely states that "plaintiff

           is est,qpped "from asserting his c.laims"·                            (see,,   Ans.we.r t"o ArnendE::1-d.

           Coril.plain:t      and Ar"\'1./:mded .Coun:t;erclaim s,       '![97    [NYSCEF    Doc.    No.    182_)),

           "Further,         paragraphs        99· and    110       of   the      answer     li·kewise. assert

           a·f firmative defens'es of estoppel.                      to assert a claim of equitaple
           estoppel th_e             defendants      must allege           concer'riing plaintiff             \\ ( 1)

           conduct which amounts to a fal.s.:.e repr.e-sent_a.ti on -or ¢oncealni.erit of

           material .f._acts;           (2) interitiori. that such conduct will be act~o .llpo;n.

           by _the other .party; and (3) knowledge of the real facts.                                    The party

                                                                2

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2024 02:55 PM                                          INDEX NO. 507184/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 195                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           asserting E?.st.oppel rn1.1st ·show witl1._ r.espect to himself"":         (1) lack of

          .kp.owledge of the t,rue facts;          (:2)    reliance upon the conduct of the

           party estopped; and (3.) a prejudicial change in ·his position" (.§..§..§.,
          ..Adams. v.   Washington Group LLC.,            11 Mis¢:3;d 10·_g3:_(A) ,. -819 NYS2d 6.46

           [Supreme Court Kings County 2006]).                  The countettla.im s allege that

           the plaintiff Nawshad utilized his -:position with thtf oompany to the

           d.etrirnemt of the company an:d that he further ha-rrned tl;le company in
           n1,1merous ways ( ~ , Counterciaims . ':l[':1121-73 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 182]).

           While those        allegatiorts. wi•11 be. s.ubject to: disc.every,.           at th.is

           juncture th.e affirmative defenses. are v:~lid.

                   °r'.Jext, the plaintiff seeks to dismiss the affirmative defense

           o·f ex turpi caus:a·. rion or.ittir actio which means essentially that the

           plaintiff .cannot purs,ue cla.:i.ms that arise from his own tOrtitius

           conduct and sim:Llarly, µnclean hands.                    Considering the -facts of

           t_his   -case;-.   thes.e- affirrnativ:.e      defenses   ·really   al1~ge    the    same

           defense, namely that the plaintiff engaged in i:mpr()per conduct.and

           there.fore cannot :.benefit. frbin his wron:9do-irtg.            There·fore, the mo+,"e

           c.ommonJ,.y kno.wn an¢ brqad ciefense o:E unclean ha_nds applies.                   Thus,

           the duplicative         affirmative defense qf            ex turpi causa no!1 oritur

           .actio• is he:re-by d.lswis$.ed.

                   The next affirmative defense asserts the statute of frauds.

           There may be allegations, suojec.t to discove,ry, concerni_ng whether

           there is. .an unwritten a.9reement regarding the transfer of land_._

           Therefore, this. def.ense may be relevant.                  If no such issue ar.ises

                                                          J

                                                       3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2024 02:55 PM                                            INDEX NO. 507184/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 195                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

                    in th;L.~- case the- plaintiff may mov:e agaj.n seeking this di·~rnis$· 9 L

                   Likewise, th~ affi.;rmative defense .of statute of lirni tations may be

                    relevant.    Upon the conclusion of .all discovery the plaintiff may

                    move ag_ain .s.eeking· its :qismi.ssal.

                          Upon consent,       the affirmative defenses related to the Dead

                   -Man's ·-Statute,. c.onsttuctive trust and ."knowingly naming .improper

                    partie:s- are hereby· dismissed.

                          The motion seeking to dismiss            the affirinati ve defenses      of
                    standing and forum rton conve.niens ·:is denied.-          There are-: d:±spu:tes

                    whether the plaintiffs are meinbe.rs of all ,;_he corporat_ions and

                    forum non conveniens may be asserted as cfn af firm:ati ve de:fense.

                          The rnoti•on see·kin_g to disrnis·S. the counter.claim s. conta-:Lned in

                    paragraphs tl 2 and 114 regarding Bede s se:e Imp.arts Ltd .. , a non-party

                    to the action is granted.           ·The r.eq:.uest to dismis:s para:g:i:aph _113

                    regarding the       faiiure to in.elude Beciess~e Impo:i:-ts Ltd.,          as an

                    indispensable party is denied.

                          l'he moti_ob seeking to dismiss _paragr_a_ph 115 which asserts that

                    any   a1legcitipn   that    has   not been    answered   is   denied   is   hereby

                    dismissed.

                                  So ordered.

                                               ENTER:

                    DAT-~D: j\prii   4 2024
                            Brooklyn N.Y.                  H9n. Leon Ruchelsman
                                                           JSC

                                                              4

                                                 4 of 4 ---------- ---------- --------
                   ············ ···--··-·-~ ----------
[* 4]   ........