Court Opinion

ID: 9945530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:12.08917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.513290
License: Public Domain

Kirschenbaum v De Baets
               2024 NY Slip Op 30581(U)
                    February 22, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 653287/2019
                  Judge: Andrew Borrok
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. 653287/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 247                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 53
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             JASON KIRSCHENBAUM,                                                                    INDEX NO.         653287/2019

                                                          Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE        11/29/2023
                                                - V -
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.        009
             STEPHANE DEBAETS, THOSAPONG JURUTHAVEE,
             ELEVATED RETURNS, LLC,315 EAST DEAN
             ASSOCIATES, INC.,ASPEN DIGITAL, INC.,ER MERRY                                           DECISION+ ORDER ON
             WAY LP, ER GLOBAL, LLC,JOHN DOES 1-10,                                                        MOTION
                                                          Defendant.
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

            HON. ANDREW BORROK:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 236,237,238, 239,
            240,241,242,243,244,245,246
            were read on this motion to/for                                         AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

            Upon the foregoing documents, Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend or in the alternative for

            reargument/renewal is denied.

            This case was first filed in 2019, and Mr. Kirschenbaum's theory of the case has gone through a

            number of different iterations and pleadings. By decision and order dated October 16, 2020, the

            Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs claims except one, his claim sounding in unjust enrichment

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 68). After discovery, by decision and order dated October 30, 2023, the

            Court granted the Defendant's motion seeking summary judgment and dismissal of the claim for

            unjust enrichment (NYSCEF Doc. No. 228). Thus, this case has been disposed and there is no

            complaint left to amend (Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assocs., LLC. v. Kadem Cap. Mgmt., Inc., 306

            A.D.2d 155, 156 [1st Dept 2003] ["Plaintiffs' complaint having been previously dismissed on

             653287/2019 KIRSCHENBAUM, JASON vs. DE BAETS, STEPHANE                                                     Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 009

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 653287/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 247                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            summary judgment in a prior, unappealed order, there was no basis for a motion for its

            amendment; there was no complaint left before the court to amend."]).

            Plaintiffs request in the alternative for reargument is also denied. A motion to reargue must be

            based upon matters of law or fact allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in

            determining the prior motion (CPLR 2221[d]; Pezhman v Chanel, Inc., 126 AD3d 497,497 [1st

            Dept 2015]). Plaintiff fails to point to any matter oflaw or fact this Court overlooked or

            misapprehended. Plaintiff argues that the existence of several contracts governing the

            transactions he entered into with Defendants presents an issue of fact warranting reargument and

            denial of Defendant's motion for summary judgment. But the Court knew of and expressly

            relied on the existence of these contracts in granting the Defendant's motion seeking summary

           judgment. Discovery has revealed that the parties' relationships were governed by specific

            agreements and that there are no issues of fact that these agreements were not violated and that

            the Plaintiff is not otherwise entitled to relief based on a claim for unjust enrichment. As

            discussed in the October 20, 2020 decision and order, Plaintiffs investment in the ASPEN REIT

            was governed by a March 22, 2016 Letter Agreement, under which Plaintiff would have been

            compensated with 50% of any advisory fee paid to the advisory company, and 25% equity in the

            advisory company, upon a successful listing of the REIT on NASDAQ, which never occurred

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 68 at 17). Following this, Plaintiff was compensated as a W-2 employee

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 166). As discussed in the October 30, 2023 decision and order, Plaintiffs

            claims relating to the $1.36 million investment in Aspen Coin and an alleged one-third interest in

            a $1 million investment in Securitize were also governed by contract, namely an October 2, 2018

            Purchase Agreement and a November 2, 2018 Stock Purchase Agreement, respectively

             653287/2019 KIRSCHENBAUM, JASON vs. DE BAETS, STEPHANE                               Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 009

[* 2]                                                     2 of 4
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 653287/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 247                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 228 at 5-6). This Court found Plaintiff did not produce any evidence

            indicating he is entitled to payment from Defendants pursuant to these latter two contracts

            sufficient to raise an issue of triable fact. In particular, the Court found Plaintiff failed to adduce

            any evidence in support of his allegation as to any possessory interest in the funds invested in

            Securitize (NYSCEF Doc. No. 228 at 2-3) that raised a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff fails to

            point to any evidence indicating Plaintiff was due such a payment that the Court did not consider

            or misapprehended.

            For the avoidance of doubt, the Court notes that Plaintiffs proposed breach of contract claim

            alleging Defendants owe Plaintiff $1.36 million, apparently pursuant to his investment in Aspen

            Coin, would nevertheless be unavailing, because Plaintiffs proposed Third Amended Complaint

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 243) fails to allege Defendants committed any specific breach of the

            October 2, 2018 Purchase Agreement, or that Defendants have any control or custody over these

            funds. As to Plaintiffs claim to the one-third portion of an alleged $1 million fee paid out to

            Defendants, Plaintiffs proposed Third Amended Complaint sues for these funds on the basis of

            fraud, not breach of contract (NYSCEF Doc. No. 243, ,i,i 85-91). The Court dismissed this same

            fraud claim in its October 16, 2020 decision and order, and denied Plaintiff leave to amend to

            renew this claim post-discovery in its October 30, 2023 decision and order, finding the claim still

            subject to the same infirmities that warranted its dismissal. Plaintiff has made no effort to fix

            these infirmities pursuant to this motion. To the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to bring a

            breach of contract claim on the purported one-third fee (and it is not clear he does), this too fails

            because Plaintiff has not produced evidence showing he is even a party to the November 2, 2018

            Stock Purchase Agreement or that he contributed any funds to Defendants' investment in

             653287/2019 KIRSCHENBAUM, JASON vs. DE BAETS, STEPHANE                                  Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 009

[* 3]                                                       3 of 4
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 653287/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 247                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            Securitize under that Agreement such that he is entitled to any payment pursuant to that

            Agreement. Thus, this Agreement does not provide Plaintiff and ground for relief and such a

            claim is palpably insufficient as a matter of law and it does not matter that monies invested in

            Securitize were returned.

            Plaintiff indicated at oral argument (2.20.24) that the Court should exercise its discretion to

            consider the instant motion for reargument as one for renewal. Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e)(2), a

            motion for leave to renew must be based on new facts not offered on the prior motion that would

            change the prior determination, or on a demonstration that there has been a change in the law that

            would change the prior determination. The Plaintiff fails to point to any new facts or change in

            the law that would change this Court's prior ruling. Thus, the motion is denied.

                    2/22/2024
                      DATE                                                        ANDREW BORROK, J.S.C.

                                                                       ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         0    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

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

             653287/2019 KIRSCHENBAUM, JASON vs. DEBAETS, STEPHANE                                   Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 009

[* 4]                                                      4 of 4