Preview:

Hertz Equip. Rental Inc. v Modern Concrete Corp. 2009 NY Slip Op 32423(U) October 14, 2009 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 09284-2009 Judge: Emily Pines Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* 1]

INDEX NUMBER: 09284-2009

Origit~alMotion Date: Motion Subinit Date: hilotion Sequence No.:
__
.

07-21-2009 07-29-2009 001 MG

____

x

HERTZ EQUIPhlENT RENTAL INC.,
Plaintiff, -against MODERN CONCRETE CORP., and MAR1 A 1) HLLAVEDOVA, individually and d/l,/a M 0 I ) E R N INDUSTRIES, Defendants.
-

Attorney for Plaintiff Aguvinoa & Asselta, LLP 170 Old Country Road, Suite 608 Miiicola, New York 11501 Attorney for Defendants Steven I;. Lowenhair, Esq. 445 Broadhollow Road, Ste 19 Melville, New York 11747

___-

x

O R D I ~ R E D t1i;it the motion (motion scquence number 001) by plaintiff to dismiss ,

del-;mi,uits ,!I fi I n i < i t i c defense and for suininaryjudgment is grantcd; and it is further

ORD/:`KEf), a hearing on co~unsel is scheduled for Dccember 7,2009 at 9:30 a.m. before that fees
the LlIidcl~gl~i.d

I
12 7 0 0 0
xtion
211
1

ii



. ~ na c t i o n by pl~iiitiff recover for breach of contract, an account stated and fraud. to
1, 3 .
17)

this Plaintif I ~~,~iiiiiiciicd action
,uitl

the filing o f a Suninions and Vei~fied Complaint on or about March defendants' service o f an Ansucr on or about May 14, 2009. The credit agreement between plaintiff and "Modern Industries"

i:>iic U < L joined

>cx 0111 01 ,111ccluipmciit I ental and

which 11, I C Iwson,il !I guaranteed bq defcndant Maria 1)ellaVedola ("DcllaVedola") who represented on

ihe agreciiic~il `Jic \as the president. The gravamen of the Complaint is that defendants failed and tlicit

[* 2]

refriscci

IO

pi!

ti,i

tlic rental of equipnient froin plaintiff, defendants' tender of checks which were

returncd

1 0 1

i:itilficieiit funds and Dellavedola's failure to pay upon the guarantee. Plaintiff claims the breach of contract and accouni statcd claims is $51,646.04 plus interest
pci month ( 1 S% per annum) plus costs of collection, court costs and attorneys' fees

afiiouii~ diic , i n c o\ iny is on the

at ihe I JIL' of 1
pursumt
LO tlic 1

0

crnis oftlie agrcemcnt. Plaintiff also seeks recovery on the fraud causes of action in the

amount of

B I 0.000.00. representing the total of the checks tendered by defendants which were returned

for insut lic>iciil tiind5
i ) c I k l ~ t I ~ ~ iAnswer asserts essentially general denials and also affirmative defenses of lack of t:j'

plarntitl"c, c J p c i t y to

tie

and the statute of frauds.

lJ1,tintif 1 nou moves for an Order dismissing the affirmative defenses and granting summary

judgmciit on thc. grouiid that there is no genuine issue of fact warranting a trial. In support ofthe motion, plaintiti , u b n i i t ~ai1 afliriiiation of counsel, an affidavit of Bessie Williams, credit and customer service inanagci o i.piaiiiti i'i-. capacii!
t o do
;I

copy O T the agicerrieiii arid irivoiGcs, tilt: picadirigs aid searches ofthe New York

Stale lkpmiiient of State website. Initially, plaintiff asserts that the affirmative defense of lack of
L Oc o n i incncc

the action must be dismissed because plaintiff is a foreign corporation authorized

bii:,iiic> i n

Ncv York and anncxes a copy ofthe New York State Department of State listing to

their n i ~ 3 1 oJ?Ll])Cr!j Neut, plaintiff argues that the affirmative defense of statute of frauds is also without n

tiiiderl!~iiig action is bascd upon the written agreement between the parties and the credit mei.it a ~ l i c
applic'iti
'11

sigiied b !

DcllaVedo '1.

Thus, plaintiff urges the Court to dismiss these affirmative

de f i:n sC*

PI'iiiitI

1'1 t hc n notes that the account agreement and rental agreements listed the business entity

of"rClocl(~in Iiidtistr~es and states that its research has determined that this is not a registered business .
entity
ln[ccid. the fcJera1 taxpaqci-

identification number provided by DellaVedova on the credit

applicatioii bc~long5 dcfendant Modern Concrete Corp. Thus, plaintiff argues that DellaVedova was to

doing hiiiiic< .is Mcdcrn Industrics and should be held liable personally for any debts incurred on
hchall
01

tlic L W L t! "hlodern Industries". Additionally, plaintiffargues, DellaVedova is personally liable

undcr

t h c i r i i i ~ ~ ~ n d i t i o ipersonal i~il

guarantee contained in the account agreement.

Page 2 of 5

[* 3]

lii

Iici `iLIida i t
i

in

suppoit ol` the motion. Williams states that on or about May 25, 2006,

I )ella

c x L t o

intcred into the subject agreement wherein plaintiff agreed to furnish construction

ecluipm~n(O I i e ti:nd,ints` use at construction projects and DellaVedova agreed to pay plaintiffthe sums I
set fot tli
I1 `I

ics 01' subsccluentl~ issued rental agreements (annexed to the moving papers).
I - C I:,onall!

T>t.lla ccfo .I
I.

and Linconditionally guaranteed payment of the indebtedness of "Modern
,it

Industiit~~i i i c luding iiitcrest
b ` i l l i a i i i , ht,itcC

the rate of 18 % per annum, attorneys' fees and collection costs.

that thc sum of $ 5 1.046.04 is due and owing from the construction equipment rentals

and I k I l L i V e d oi a hd Iiiiled and refused to make payment. She further states that plaintiff sent invoices

t o Dc1Ic1`~ cdo and th`it I>ellaVedo a retained such invoices without ob.jection. Finally, Williams states

that Vadu I I
were
IWII

c oncrete tendered chc

to plaintiff, signed by I)ellciVedova, totaling $10,000.00, which

iii`il 101 insit I`ficient fund

I l a m ! on the loregoing, plaintiff seeks an Order, inter uliu, dismissing the affirmative defenses
and grant in2 suminar! judgment on the Complaint.
i IC tcndant< oppose the motion solely by an affirmation of counsel. Essentially, counsel argues

t h a ~ niot i o i i the
to irior I I I

IS

prctnature because it had served discovery demands which plaintiff did not respond motion for summary judgment. Additionally, counsel states that it interposed the

tiicil,iiig the

affirnid  c J c ~ c n x s ixxause it did not have any documents prior to the service of an Answer, but
seeming


,ic!noz
171 . x

ledges that tlicsc defenses are without merit. Counsel argues that there are issues of

f I u Ii 1c 11 k

I ucl c sit mmary -j iidgiiicnt .
subniits


P l ~ i i t iI t1 i

;i

r e p l ~u herein it notes that defendants have conceded that the affirmative
~

dcfl.nsc>, Lit1'
counsel disro C'I

not

a11J AdditionLiII!

plaintiff argucs that there are no genuine issues of fact, that
to defeat a motion for summary judgment and no additional

. , 1 1 1 i 1 ination is insuflicicnt
1.

I

i qiiiicd

I'hcreforc. plciintif'l`urgesthe Court to grant the motion in its entirety.

1:

1`.

\

L  I I scttlcJ that to obtain suniniary judgment, the moving party must make a prima facie

shobing ol
:lbscIICi'
(11

ciili
,ii1!

lenient to judgiiicni
t l l m l L d IssLIes

;IS

a matter of law, offering suf'f'icientevidence to demonstrate the

o t ` i k t . Go 7dberger v . B r i c k & Ba 7 I e r s t e f n , I n c . ,

217

4 1 7 , .'cJ

681. GZ9

N . Y . 5 . 2d

813 (2d D e p t . 1995) (internal citations omitted).

[* 4]

The bJr-der t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e p a r t y o p p o s i n g t h e motion t o come f o r w a r d  v i t h p r o o f i n a d m i s s i b l e f o r m d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e r e are genuine i s s u e ? , o f m a t e r i a l f a c t w h i c h p r e c l u d e t h e g r a n t i n g o f summary j u d g n w n t . Zayas v. H a l f Ho77ow Hi77s Cent. school D i s t . , 226 A . D . 2 d 7 1 3 , 041 N . Y . S . 2d 7 0 1 (2d D e p t . 1996). An affirmation of counsel, not based upon
pel-snnJl l
~ t i Ixlgc~0 1 ~ the ~ ~

facts and vithout supporting documentalion is insufficient to defeat amotion

M o b i l O i 7 Corp. v . Penna, 139 A . D . 2 d 501, 526 N . Y . S . 2d 849 (2d D e p t . 1 9 8 8 ) . See a7s0, Demacos v. Demacos, 142 A . 0 . 2 ~ 1 5 4 6 , 529 N . Y . S . 2 d 904 (2d D e p t . 1988).
for suniniLIr! Iudgmcnt.
11-1 ~ i ,iclioii i

to rccovcr t i x a i account stated, a plaintiff'icreditor ineets it prima facie burden by

demonsti ciliiis(hat t h c def'endant rcceived and retained the account statements without objection and
made
13; I I ~ ~ L p,q1~11cn1 I on

the Liccounts. see,

e. g. , Schne ider Fue 7 O f 7 , rnc. v.

DeGennaro, 238 A . D . 2 d 4 9 5 , 656 N . Y . S . 2 d 668 (2d D e p t . 1 9 9 7 ) .
~t~iit~1;11 ihc

I!.

signer oj'a

1 x 1 ittcii

instrument is "conclusivel!. bound by its terms unless there is

a s h o I~

(11.

~raud.duress o r i o m e other wrongful act on the part of any party to the contract."

Dunkin' Donuts v . L i b e r a t o r e , 1 3 8 A . D . 2 d 5 5 9 , 526 N . Y . S . 2 d 141 (Zd Dept 1988). See a l s o , chrys7er C r e d i t Corp. v. Kosa7, 1 3 2 A . D . 2 d 6 8 6 , 518 N . Y . S . 2d 1 6 2 (2d D e p t . 1987). Whcrc a guarantee clearly indicates that the
signator,
t ioiil(l
<I

"~~iiconditionall~ guarantee" the performance oftlic corporation and is unambiguously
"guaimty'. i t will be enforceable against the guarantor.

identiiicd

.I

S U f f o 7k Cement
A.D.2d

Products, Tnc.

v. Empire Concrete E n t e r p r i s e s , I n C . , 234
1996);

447,

650

N . Y.S.2d
< I Ic 1101

8 0 1 (2d D e p t .

Dunkin Donuts,

supra.

Such broad

guarantcci

Iiinitcd b! thc fact that the corporation only sought a minimum credit line.

Co7onial F'lurnbing Corp. v. Ga77agher, 217 A . D . 2 d 7 6 4 , 629 N . Y . S . 2 d 1 2 8 (::Id D e p t . 1 9 9 5 ) .

Page 3 of 5

[* 5]

v . LaMattin,3 CG ASSOC., 59 A.D.3d 578, 872 N.Y.S.2d 724 (2d D e p t . 2009) See a7so, Canarick v . C f c a r e 7 7 i , 46 ~ . D . 3 d587, 847 N . Y . S . 2 d 6 4 1 i:;'cf [le1 t . 2 007) (inotion for summary judgmcnt miis not premature where plaintiff failed to 3
detiioirsti & i i i 11 ~ , i i idd!iional ilico
CIJ

might lcad to relc,int evidcncc or that the facts necessary to
the knowledge md/or control of defendants.).

npposc~t i l i

I I I O I I O I I L ~ IT C

c u c l u ~ iCIJ

\itIiin

.I. s.

c.

Page 5 of 5



Download 2009_32423.pdf

New York Law