Court Opinion

ID: 9964065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 20:09:46.2213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:09.344328
License: Public Domain

Shabat v Schnaier
               2024 NY Slip Op 31425(U)
                      April 22, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 652778/2019
                  Judge: Debra A. James
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. 652778/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DEBRA A. JAMES                                                 PART   59
                                                                                      Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X
                                                                                                     INDEX NO.          652778/2019
             TAMIR SHABAT,
                                                                                                     MOTION DATE         11/30/2022
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO.         004
                                                 - V -

             JOE SCHNAIER, SYLVIE SCHNAIER, and JOSEPH
                                                                                                       DECISION + ORDER ON
             COHEN,
                                                                                                             MOTION
                                                         Defendants.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,
            80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,100
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                                                                            ORDER

                      Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                      ORDERED that to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the second

            and third causes of action for unjust enrichment and for fraud,

            respectively, against defendants Joe Schnaier and Slyvie Schnaier,

            the motion of the defendants for summary judgment is GRANTED, and

            such causes of action as against such defendants are DISMISSED;

            and it is further

                      ORDERED that to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the first

            cause        of      action          for      breach of               contract           against     defendants            Joe

            Schnaier and Sylvie Schnaier, the third cause of action for fraud

            against defendant Cohen, the fourth cause of action for breach of

            fiduciary duty against defendant Cohen,                                                 and the      fifth cause of

             652778/2019 SHABAT, TAMIR vs. SCHNAIER, JOE                                                                 Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 004

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 4
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 652778/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

            action sounding in negligent misrepresentation against defendant

            Cohen,      the defendants' motion of summary judgment is DENIED; and

            it is further

                   ORDERED that the cross-motion of the plaintiff TAMIR

            SHABAT, for summary judgment, is DENIED; and it is further

                   ORDERED that counsel are directed to post on NYSCEF a proposed

            preliminary        conference         order      or    competing proposed preliminary

            conference order(s) at least two days before May 14, 2024 on which

            date     counsel       shall       appear       via      Microsoft    Teams     unless       such

            appearance be waived by the court.

                                                           DECISION

                   The plaintiff Tamir Shabat                     ("Shabat")    commenced this action

            seeking the payment of a promissory note                           (NYSCEF Document Number

            5, "the Note")          executed by the defendants Joe Schnaier and Sylvie

            Schnaier (the "Schnaiers").

                   It    is undisputed that                the    Schnaiers     received the proceeds

            under the Note in the amount of $150,000, plus interest of $50,000,

            from Shabat.           Schnaiers do not deny that they never repaid any

            amount under the Note.                   In addition,          the Note bears an annual

            interest that greatly exceeds the maximum allowed by law.

                   The     Schnaiers        move      for        summary   judgment    dismissing             the

            complaint, asserting that the Note is unenforceable, as usurious.

            Shabat cross-moves             for    summary judgment for breach of the Note

            against the Schnaiers, for unjust enrichment and fraud against all

             652778/2019 SHABAT, TAMIR vs. SCHNAIER, JOE                                        Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 004

[* 2]                                                       2 of 4
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 652778/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

            the defendants,           and for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence

            against Cohen.

                     Shabat alleges that the Schnaiers' co-defendant Joseph Cohen

            ("Cohen")       facilitated the transaction between the Schnaiers and

            Shabat.        Shabat submits text messages that evidence that Cohen

            proposed       the     Note's       usurious        terms        after        Shabat     previously

            declined to lend money to the defendants Joe Schnaier and Sylvie

            (the    "Schnaiers").           (NYSCEF         Document        Numbers       87   and   90.)            In

            addition, Shabat asserts that Cohen has represented him in multiple

            transactions over a few years prior to proposing that Shabat make

            the    loan to       the Schnaiers.              Shabat        further       alleges,    with some

            documentary evidence,               that Cohen represented Wantickets RDM LLC,

            during the relevant time-period, which company he claims is owned

            by defendant Joe Schnaier.

                    Defendants        are    not     entitled         to    summary       dismissal       of        the

            complaint for breach of the Note,                         as Shabat has raised triable

            issues as to the nature of Cohen's involvement in the transaction

            and his relationship with the Schnaiers,                           as well as the role of

            the     attorney       Shabat       retained        to     draft        the     papers      for         the

            transaction, who Shabat alleges acted as a mere scribe.                                  Therefore,

            issues whether the defendants should be estopped from asserting

            usury     as    a    defense      must     be     tried        before    a    fact finder.              See

            Abramovitz v Kew Realty Equities,                         Inc.,    180 AD2d 568            (1 st Dept

            1992) and Angelo v Brenner, 90 AD2d 131, 132 (3d Dept 1982).                                            For

             652778/2019 SHABAT, TAMIR vs. SCHNAIER, JOE                                              Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 004

[* 3]                                                        3 of 4
                                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 652778/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

            the same reason, Shabat's cross motion for summary relief must be

            denied.

                    Shabat's            second       and      third        causes    of       action            for       unjust

            enrichment            and       fraud,      respectively,          as     against            the        Schnaiers

            duplicate his cause of action for breach of contract against them,

            and therefore               shall be dismissed.                   See Goldstein v CIBC World

            Markets Corp,              6 AD3d 295            (1 st Dept 2004).            Nor is his negligent

            representation against the Schnaiers viable, as he does not allege

            any special relationship with them.                              See Basis Pac-Rim Opportunity

            fund v TCW Asset Management Co, 24 AD3d 538 (1 st Dept 2015).

                    However,           the court finds that the breach of fiduciary duty

            claim against defendant Cohen is adequately pled, as Shabat alleges

            that defendant Cohen breached his duty as his former attorney by

            later         representing           defendant          Schnaiers,         whose           interests               were

            adverse         to    Shabat,        his     former       client.          See       TVGA        Engineering,

            Surveying,            PC    v    Gallick,         45   AD3d      1252,     1256         (4 th     Dept         2007).

            Likewise,            Shabat      states      a    viable        cause    of action of negligent

            misrepresentation against Cohen.                            See RBS Citizens, NA v Thorsen,

            71 AD3d 1108 (2d Dept 2010).

                                                                                    JJ- ~ JI - } ~
                                                                                20240422123929DJAME5D1A3703E7CE04CF6873E3E729FE92392

                    4/22/2024
                      DATE                                                               DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C.

                                         ~
             CHECK ONE:                       CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                              GRANTED          □ DENIED         GRANTED IN PART                  □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                     SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:            INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT            □ REFERENCE

             652778/2019 SHABAT, TAMIR vs. SCHNAIER, JOE                                                            Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 004

[* 4]                                                              4 of 4