Day v Zwirn

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Day v Zwirn 2005 NY Slip Op 30278(U) June 20, 2005 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 0124493/2001 Judge: Shirley Werner Kornreich 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 ] SCANNED ON 711212005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY Justice INDEX NO. MOTION DATE -vMOTION SEQ. NO. ZtJi Ed ly$$bI w MOTION CAL. NO. The followlng papers, numbered 1 to I were read on thls motion tolfor PAPERS NUMBERED Notlce of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits ... 1 Answering Affidavits - Exhibits Replqing Affidavits Cross-Motion: Yes I& No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion Check if appropriate: 0 DONOTPOST 0 REFERENCE- [* 2 ] Index No.: 122493/01 Plaintiff, DECISION and ORDER -against- GERARD ZWIRN, ESQ. and JOSEPH PASSARELLI,, Defendants, This is an action to recover for an alleged fiaudulent transfer. In a prior action for legal malpractice, plaintiff obtained a judgment against defendant Gerard Zwirn in the amount of $13 1,02 1.74. In the present action, plaintiff alleges that Zwirn avoided payment of the judgment by fraudulently transferring approximately $925,000 of lus assets in connection with the purported purchase by Zwirn of an interest in two entities in which defendant Joseph Passarelli also held an interest: Danjo Automotive Corp. d/b/a Roeppel Mazda Hyundai ( Danjo ), and Bronx Volkswagen Corp. aka City Line Auto Mall ( Bronx Volkswagen ). According to the complaint, Mr. Passarelli subsequently issued false (and undocumented) capital calls to MR. Zwirn on behalf of said entities, resulting in the purported loss of Zwirn s interests in the entities. All of this, alleges plaintiff, was done by Zwirn and Passarelli as part of a scheme to avoid payment of the judgment. Good Old Days Tavern v. Zwirn, Sup. Ct. New York County, Index No. 11465/93. 1 [* 3 ] Motions There are two motion sequences now before the Court. In Motion Sequence No. 10, plaintiff moves to amend the cornplaint to add as additional defendants Danjo and Bronx Volkswagen (together, the Proposed Additional Defendants ), and to make further factual allegations of wrongdoing based on information obtained in discovery. Plaintiff submits the affirmation of his attorney, a copy of his proposed Amended Supplemental Complaint, copies of Stock Surrender Agreements, a letter addressed to Passarelli terminating the dealer agreement between Danjo and Mazda North American Operations, and a copy of the initial complaint. In opposition, Passarelli submits the affirmation of his attorney. Zwirn makes no submission.2 In Motion Sequence No. 12, plaintiff moves for an order striking defendant Passarelli s answer on the ground that he has failed to comply with the Court s discovery order dated December 16,2004. Plaintiff submits: a copy of the order, with notice of entry and proof of service upon Mr. Passarelli s attorney; a copy of an IRS authorization prepared by Passarelli; the Affidavit of Rhoda Dobencker, and correspondence with the IRS. Neither defendant opposes the motion. Conclusions of Law 4 Motion to Amend Leave to amend pleadings shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay. See Leibowitz v. Mt. $inai Hosp., 296 A.D.2d 340 (1 Dept. 2002). Leave to amend to add new parties may be granted if the proponent alleges legally sufficient facts to 2Mr.Zwirn s attorney addressed a letter to the Court indicating that Mr. Zwirn filed a bankruptcy petition on November 2,2004, in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 04-40306-BKC-AJC. 2 . . . [* 4 ] establish a prima facie cause of action or defense in the proposed amended pleading." &X!&& City of New Yo& ,263 A.D.2d 410 (1" Dept. 1999) quoting pilxliels v.- V. *re-C)rr. Inc., 151 A.D.2d 370, 371 (1" Dept. 1989). Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint alleges, inter alia, as follows. Mr. Zwim has been Mr. Passarelli's attorney, and personal friend, for over twenty years. Zwirn's transfer of $600,000 to Danjo and/or Bronx Volkswagen was far in excess of the value of the shares he supposedly acquired. Zwirn owned a majority interest in the proposed additional defendants at the time of the transfer of funds, but concealed this fact, in order to hide his assets. Passarelli, who has an extensive criminal record, cooperated by issuing a capital call to Zwirn, for which no documentation has been produced. Zwirn did not answer the call, purportedly resulting in the loss of his investment in Danjo and/or Bronx Volkswagen. Passarelli then caused Danjo and Bronx Volkswagen to issue promissory notes to Zwirn transferring his funds back to him. Nevertheless, Danjo and/or Bronx Volkswagen retain the $600,000 contributed by Zwirn. Moreover, the amended complaint alleges that discovery in this action revealed two stock surrender agreements whereby Zwirn sold his stock in Danjo and Bronx Volkswagen back to the respective entities for $720,000. During the course of discovery, Zwirn allegedly fabricated two new undated promissory notes to change the terms of the discovered documents, which Passarelli executed, and produced to the special referee supervising discovery. The amended complaint hrther alleges that Zwirn also fabricated two new addenda to the stock surrender agreements, which extinguished Danjo's obligation to repay Zwirn his $600,000. Passarelli allegedly executed the addenda. Plaintiff argues that the amended complaint is necessary to add facts obtained through 3 [* 5 ] discovery: inter alia, that Danjo, Bronx Volkswagen and Auto Mall were controlled by Zwim at the time of the fradulent transfers; and that Zwirn and Passarelli have continued a course of improper conduct through the pendency of this action, as revealed in discovery proceedings. Passarelli s attorney s one-page opposing affirmation simply argues that all proceedings in this action are stayed pursuant to Mr. Zwirn s federal bankruptcy action commenced in Florida. However, [tlhe automatic stay provisions of the Federal bankruptcy laws apply only to the parties in the adversary proceeding in Bankruptcy Court and do not extend to nonbanhpt codefendants. Maynard v. George A. Fuller Co., 236 A.D.2d 300 (1 st Dept. 1997); accord Torre v. Fay s Inc., 259 A.D.2d 896,897 (3d Dept. 1999). Thus, plaintiff may proceed against Passarelli. The Court concludes that the proposed amendments to the complaint will not prejudice defendants because the factual allegations are connected with the same transactions alleged in the initial complaint. See Valdes v. Marbrose Realty Inc., 289 A.D.2d 28,29 (1st Dept. 2001) ( Prejudice arises when a party incurs a change in position or is hindered in the preparation of its case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of its position ). Moreover, the addition of new parties is justified because plaintiff has alleged an overall fraudulent scheme involving Zwirn, Passarelli and the Proposed Additional Defendants. See Murine Midland Bank v. Zurich Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 382, 383 (1st Dept. 1999) (citations omitted); see also Cilco Cement Corp. v. White, 5 5 A.D.2d 668 (2nd Dept. 1976) (corporate defendant may be held liable for fraudulent transfer of corporate assets). Thus, plaintiffs motion 4 [* 6 ] to amend the complaint is granted.3 B. Motisn ta St& By order dated December 16,2004, this Court ordered Mr. Passarelli to turn over authorizations for all tax returns filed for the Proposed Additional Defendants. According to plaintiff, Passarelli produced the authorizations on March 1, 2005, and plaintiff then sent them to the IRS. On or about March 28,2005, an employee of plaintiff s attorney received a phone call from an IRS representative stating that the authorizations were unacceptable because the signatures on the forms were unreadable. Affidavit of R. Dobencker, para. 3. Plaintiffs attorney affirms that he contacted Mr. Passarelli s attorney, Richard Aronstein, who refused to provide further authorizations. Affirmation of R. Curtis, para. 6. The trial court is vested with discretion to strike pleadings where a party fails to comply with a court order and frustrates the disclosure scheme set forth in the CPLR... . See K h v. il Pfeger,94 N.Y.2d 118, 122 (1999) (affirming dismissal of complaint for plaintiffs failure to respond to interrogatories within court-ordered time frames). 44[C]ompliance with a disclosure order requires both a timely response and one that evinces a good-faith effort to address the requests meaningfully. Id. at 123. Here, Passarelli s response to the Court s order was neither timely nor reflective of good faith. The order was issued on December 16,2004, and Passarelli did not turn over the authorizations-two simple one-page forms-until March 1,2005. Moreover, Passarelli s refusal to amend the authorizations to include a legible signature, in accordance with 3The Court notes that the First Department has commented on the highly questionable circumstances of the underlying case (the facts of which are also pertinent to this action), and sanctioned Mr. Zwirn for fiivolous conduct in litigation. See Good Old Days Tavern, Inc. v. Zwirn, 259 A.D.2d 300 1st Dept. 1999); Good Old Days Tavern,Inc. v. Zwim, 261 A.D.2d 288, 289 (1st Dept. 1999). 5 [* 7 ] the request of the IRS, evinces anything but good faith. As the Court of Appeals noted, [ilf the credibility of court orders and the integnty of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity. Id. Thus, Mr. Passarelli s answer shall be stricken, unless he provides the requested authorization, with a legible signature. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint herein is granted, and the amended complaint in the proposed form annexed to the moving papers shall be deemed served upon service of a copy of this order with notice of entry thereof; and it is hrther ORDERED that defendants shall serve an answer to the amended complaint within 20 days from the date of said service; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of t h s order on the Trial Support Office and the County Clerk within 20 days, so that their records may be altered to reflect the changes; and it is further ORDERED that defendant Joseph Passarelli shall provide plaintiff with R S authorizations for all tax records of Danjo Automotive C o y . d/b/a Koeppel Mazda Hyundai, and Bronx Volkswagen COT. aka City Line Auto stricken. Date: June 20,2005 New York, New York 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.