Echavarria v David Lawrence Studio, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Echavarria v David Lawrence Studio, LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 32027(U) July 24, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 112246/20 Judge: Paul Wooten 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. ANNED ON 81212012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HQN. PAUL WOOTEN Justice 7 PART SEBASTIAN ECHAVARRIA and NATALIA ECHAVARRIA, Plaintiffs, INDEX NO. F\LE -against- DAVID LAWRENCE STUDIO, LLC., DAVID LAWRENCE, CLARK NOEL BRICENO, JANE DOE, IDENTIFIED HEREIN AS "RAI," I 12246/10 .h SEQUENCE, NO. 1 00') MAYFIELDA\J~ ? Q2%" Defendants. VO?&F\CE coupfl cGRN Answering Affidavits - Exhibits (Mepo) Replying Affidavits (Reply Merpp) Cross-Motion: seeking to stay this action and to Gompel gr ration. Plaintiffs oppose this app1,icatiQr-l apd cro$s-rnove for sancti sHbuld be erltitled to attorneys fees and tWat plaintiffs qnd or their attorneys should be I sanctioned for bringing a frivolouS cross-motiqn 1 The parties enterqd'ie I signed on November tiffs' home locate * ? reement) dated Octobqr I p I 1 [* 2] stated that the defendants were to provide Design Services at a flat fee and section three entitled Interior Architectural Consulting /C<opstructionManageme(.lt, $Sated, inter d i a , fbat the *iI ,3aj. ,*r 111, A? 11, I- 1 Interior Architectural Consulting (if any) and Construction/Contractor Management (if any) will happen in tandem with Design Services (Defendants OSC, exhibit B, sections 2 and 3). Moreover, section three also stated that the following items [are] considered part of this service, but not limited to: drafting archkctuial drawings, including. plans, elevations & other related drawings. . . drafting technical drawings for Reflected Ceiling Plans & Power Plans. coordinating and reviewing drawings for submission to respective building department s, ing qnd providing boards, commissions, townships, agencies, et al . , . manqging, supe comments on the quality of work being performed by gutside contractors sub contractors and roject Agreemwt also specialty trades people . . . (id. at section 3 I All disputes arising under contained an arbitration provision at seCti9 I s of the American this Agreement will be settled by artli I Arbitration Association. I , A waiver o not be construed as a continuing waiver o agreement will es of the same or other provisions hereof ( ~ dat p. 6, sectionl3) . There came a time after the inferior design COmmenced that plaintiffs became I tisfied with defendants sew I mmrnenced this action alleging b I r m I I conversion: fraud and deceptiv business practices and s w g h t damages in excess of $5,000,000 Now before the C w r t is defendants motion, pursuant to CPLR 7503(a), seekihg to stay this proceeding and compel arbitration pursuant to section 13 of the Projgct AQreement, Plaintiffs w e in opposition t9 t dank motion and also crosq NYCkR 9 130-1 1 Plaintiffs asse bitectural drawings, qnd iq rniq I pursuant to 22 aring detailed floor plans and + p o r kpelforped by the ekctricians, Garpenters, and painters, among other things, acted as unlic&Wd awhitects and - _. , ,h i I. ~ I [* 3] r ,'1 I- I home improvement contractors in violation of Education Law 5 7302, Business Corporation Law 5 1503(a) and the Suffolk County and Tgwn qf SQuthamptonAdministrative Codes. Plaintiffs 1'111'1 f 1 aver that because defendants provided architect ura I and home improvement contract or services to plaintiffs without a license to do SQ,the Project Agreement including the arbitration Y provision is rendered void and unenforceable. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants' motion to I stay the proceedings and compel arbitration is frivolous and as a consequence defendants should be directed to pay plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $8,570.00 and should be sanctioned not less than $10,000.00 (see plaintiffs' affirmation in opposition 7 7 3- 1I). In opposition to plaintiffs' cross-mation, defendants proffer that they did not hold themselves out as licensed architects in Ate that the complaint does not architectural services to the plaintiffs tI allege that the defendants did sb. D ction 3 of the Project Agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs in oppos terior architecture the plaintiffs only contracted done. Defendants claim that this se wjtb the defendants for interior decorating Fervices. More&, defeedants assert that the' y defendants proposing Project Agreement specifically stat rk or revqvatiqns a u$t be sidrie'd andbsealed by a licensed architect L dants aver, is further evidehce that defendants were not acting as arch defendants proffer that the cases relied ishable to the case at bar and the Project Agreement entered $ ners. Furthermore, d Based on the 1 1 J l is itself frivolous'and on oregang, defendants claim thst plaintiff that basis plaintiffs should be sanctione reply, plaintiffs claim that whilg , the actual services p . . fiqlly retained to prpvid4einterior Services such that r * ri. - Y [* 4] defendants acted as unlicensed home improvement contractors and architects. Thus the Project Agreement is void and section 13 is unenfonceable. Ih i r ~ -71 DISCUSSION CPLR 7503(a) provicles as follows: (a) Application to compel arbitration; stay of action. A party aggrieved by the failure of qnother to arbitrate may apply for an order compelling ilrbitrqtion. ,Where is no substantial made q r domplied with, question whether a valid agreement and the claim sought to $e arbitrated is not barred by limitatiqn t under subdivision (b) of sectisn 7502, the c ~ u rshall direct the is raised, it shall be parties to arbitrate. Where qny such q tried forthwith in said c ~ u r tI#. $n issue d to b e arbitrable is jurisdiction to hear involved in an action pending tiqn shall be made by a rqotior) to compel arbitration, the A ranted, the order shall motion it-! that action. If the applicAti operate to stay a p tiop, or so much of it as is rei%r$ble to a In order to compel arbitration pursuaht to a contractual agreement, there must be no substantial question [as to] whether a valid ag r n I 7503[a]; see Matter of)Cassone; 63 ,NY2d-756 arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503(a), the I rt is required to first make a determination whether the parties have entered into a val n agreemeqt and, if so, whether the i$sue sought to be submitted to arbitration falls within the Fcope of that agreement (Edgewafer , 439 [ l s t Dept Grp,wth Capital Partners, L. P. v Greenstar N+ , citing Koob v IDS Fin. Sews., 213 AB stay arbitration, the court s role IS that of gatekeeper, limited to deciding only three threshold questions: whether the parties made a valid agreement; so, whether the parties complied with greement; and whether the claim so y the statute of I tions (Cooper v Bruckner, 21 AD3d 7 The Court fidds that defendants have met their burden of eqtablishjng that this qrjtion 1. should proceed to arbitration- pursuant to s .~ P4ger4bf I $ 4 1 .~ 6 I The kourt also I [* 5] finds that there is no substantial question that there is a valid agreement among the parties and contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Project Agreeq5nt and qrbitrirtion provision contained I > . therein are not void After reviewing the documentary evidehce submitted, including plaintiffs 1 t, t 3 submissions of emails and floor plans, the Court determines that defendants did not hold themselves out to provide licensed architectural services, nor did they actually engage in uaauthorized or unlicensed architectural services in violation of Education Law and Business Corporation Law. Unlike in Greenberg v SNA Consultants, Inc. (55 AD3d 418 [ I s t Dept 2007]), which plaintiffs rely on in opposition, defendants here characterized the work being contracted for as interior design services throughout the Pi-bject Agreement. Furtherfiore, the floor plans I drawn up by defendants were not architectural in eature and djd not include plans for substantive changes ts the structure of the plait$iffs hQme, nolr did the SuperviSion of the painters amount to architectural or home imprgvement SNA Consriltants, Inc., 55 AD3d 418, 418 [ l s t Dept l defendants acted as unlicensed home improvementd p *+ by the allegations in the complaint, wherein plaintiffS describe the defendants as interior designers and state that they retained the defendant3 to provide interip; design seryi I plaintiffs property (Notice of Cross-Motion, exhibit ,1, 1 8 ) Arbitratioq is the proper avenue for I scope lutipn of this matter as the nat en the parties is vqlid and the. he agreement, Accordingly! the Project arbitration provision is enforceable. Therefore, defend proceeding and to compel arbitration is granted (see Stark v Mdod Spitz DeSantis & Stark, P.C., 9 NY3d 59, 66 [2007] [New York Courts have a long and strong public policy favoting I bitration . [and] New York Cou edom of consenting parties to submit disputes to arbitration ] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]) 1 The Court now turns to plaintiffs crosSmdtion seeking the impgsition of attotneys fees [* 6] l and sanctions against the defendants Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator permits courts to sanction attorneys for engaging in frivolous cdnduct, which includes conduct: (I) harass or maliciously injure completely without merit in law , (2) undertaken primarily to another , or (3) assert[ing] material factual statemeqts that are false (see 22 NYCRR 3 1302 <I 1.1; Tavella v Tavella, 25 AD3d 523, 524 [Ist Dept 20061). The Court finds that defendants - 1 conduct in bringing the herein motion was not frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR yr I 5 130- 1.1 and therefore plaintiffs cross-motion is denied. Moreover, defendants request in their opposition to the cross-motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs is also denied. Upon the fvegoiqg papers, it is, ORDERED that defendants David Laktencq Studib; LLC., David Lawrence, and Clark l Mayfield s motion for a stay of the proceeding ahd is further, I ORDERED that plaintiff s cross-motion for attorneys fees B I I1 1 1 pursuant to 22 I NYCRR 5 130-1,l is denied, it is further, ORDERED that defendant David Lawrence shall serve a copy of this order on parties. This constitutes the Decisio 3 P DONOTPOST , Tr r*

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.