Yerushalmy v Resles

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Yerushalmy v Resles 2012 NY Slip Op 32679(U) October 21, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 114603/11 Judge: Joan A. Madden 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. - ...... SCANNED ON 1012512012 - [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY - - tndex Number : 114603/2011 YERUSHALMY, OREN INDEX NO. vs. RESLES, OFER SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. DISMISS The following papem, numbered 1 to ,were mad on thio motionM o r Notice of MotIonlOrder to Show Cause -Affidavits Answrlng Affidavits Replying Affldavb - Exhibits -Exhibits Upon the foregoing paperg, it is ordered that this motion is bkPLtd p w r ~ o c l D U t $ I d +h \ 0l.Sr IN W . INow. IWs). &C L - k ! J-J b $& GI [Q d h W G3 1 OCT 2 5 2012 ,." .,..*....,.. ..... ..................................................................... CASE DISPOSED 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: .............. MOTION IS: 0GRANTED DENIED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ SETTLE ORDER 1. CHECK 0% 0DO NOT POST DISPOSITION $@N=FWL 0GRANTED IN PART 0OTHER aSUBMIT O R W 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0REFERENCE [* 2] Plaintiff, -againstOFER E S L E S , OXFORD CAPITAIE, THIRD AVENUE LLC, 554-556 THIRD AVENUE LLC, 554-556 MANAGER LLC, NYS CAPITAL GROUP, INC.and SNY CAPITAL GROUP LLC, I OCT 25 20Q - r ( Defendants. X -----___________--"_________________I___~-"------------"--"-- Joaa A. Madden, J.: Defendants 554-556 Third Avenue LLC (554-556) and 554-556 Manager LLC (Manager) 7, move for an order, pursuant to CPLR 321 1 (a) () dismissing the claims against them. Plaintiff Oren Yerushalmy (plaintiff) opposes the motion, which is denied for the reasons below. Background In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover damages, among other claims, for fraud and unjust enrichment based on defendants' alleged conspiracy to frustrate and render uncollectible a Jme 19,2008 judgment he obtained against defendant Ofer Resles (Resles). Defendant 554-556 developed a building known as the Aurora, located at 554-556 Third Avenue, New York, New York, as a condominium and corporate housing residential facility a (Complaint, 7 2). Plaintiff and Resles each were 50% members, and Resles w s also manager, of defendant Oxford Capital Third Avenue LLC (Oxford). Oxford's sole asset is a membership interest in 554-556 (id.,77 3-4). As SO% members of Oxford, they each had an equal interest in 554-556 (id).Defendant Manager is also a member of 554-556, and Oxford and Manager, or companies related to Manager, are majority members of 554-556 (id., 6 ) . Mitchell Maidman 7 1 [* 3] owns and operates Manager, and resides in a penthouse apartment in the Aurora (id). Disputes arose between Oxford and Manager, particularly between plaintiff and Maidman, over the operation of 554-556 (id.,7 1 1). On July 22,2005, Resles purchased plaintiff s entire 50% interest in Oxford for $3.5 million, becoming Oxford s sole member (id., 7 12). As part of this transaction, Resles executed a promissory note (2005 Note) in plaintiffs favor in the amount of $1 million plus interest, due on or before December 3 1,2005, and granted plaintiff a first priority security interest in all of Resles s right, title, share and interest in Resles s fin membership interest in Oxford (id, 13-15). Resles was obligated under the 2005 Note to keep the collateral [Oxford shares] free from any lien, security interest or encumbrance . , . (id, 7 16, quoting paragraph 6 of 2005 Note). Plaintiff filed a UCC-1Financing Statement 7 7. recording this obligation (id., 1 ) Plaintiff asserts that defendants 554-556 and Manager were aware of the 2005 Note and the first priority security interest granted therein at the time the note was delivered, but falsely claim they had no knowledge of it (id., fll8-19). Resles failed to pay the 2005 Note, and plaintiff commenced an action in 2006, entitled Yerushalmy v Resles, Index No. 604415/06 (Sup C , County) (Judgment Action), for the t NY failure to pay. That action resulted in a judgment, entered on June 19,2008 (the Judgment), in the amount of $1,645,201.78 (id, 20-24). Resles was unable to pay the Judgment, so plaintiff 77 looked to the collateral given as security for the 2005 Note, which was the shares of Oxford, whose sole asset is a percentage interest in 554-556(id, 2 ) 7 6. A year before the Judgment w s entered, but while that Judgment Action was pending, on a March 6,2007, Resles, without notice to plaintiff, took a loan of $300,000from 554-556 (2007 Note). This loan was evidenced by a note, which was due and payable on February 28,2010, and 2 [* 4] granted 554-556 a security interest in Oxford s membership interest in 554-556 (id, 29). The 7 proceeds of this loan went to Resles. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Resles, Oxford, 554-556 and Manager conspired to use the 2007 Note as a mechanism to avoid having plaintiff secure the Oxford shares, because so long as the 2007 Note was unpaid, plaintiff could not take the Oxford shares (id., 3 1). 7 Defendants extended the 2007 Note without notice to plaintiff, and it is now due and payable in 2015 (id.,7 32). Plaintiff then sought and obtained an order in the Judgment Action, dated December 15, 2008, in which Resles was directed to turn over to plaintiff all of his right, title and interest in the Oxford shares (id.,7 26; Exhibit G to Affidavit of Michael Fishman in Opposition). Resles did not comply with this order (Complaint, 7 26). On December 17,2009, in connection with its efforts to collect on the 2007 Note, 554556 sought to sell the Oxford shares in 554-556 at a public auction (id, 33). The value of the 7 Oxford shares is significantly more than the amount due on the 2007 Note (id, 7 34). Resles, Oxford, 554-556 and Manager then purportedly concocted a sham dispute and litigation over the 2007 Note to prevent plaintiff f o securing the Oxford shares to satisfy his Judgment, and to rm fraudulently secure plaintiff s agreement not to take the Oxford shares until the 2007 Note was repaid (id, 7 35). That litigation is entitled Oxford Capital Third Avenue LLC v 554-556 Third Avenue LLC,Index No. 603764/09. The parties then entered into a settlement of that sham dispute on July 9,2010 (July 2010 Settlement Agreement), in which Resles was granted a Lease wt Option which enabled h m to lease and purchase, at a below market price, a penthouse ih i apartment in the Aurora, in which Resles was living. The defendants failed to supply plaintiff i with a copy of the exhibits to the settlement, which would have alerted h m to the fact that the 3 [* 5] due date on the 2007 Note was extended to 201 5 (id., 37). The Lease with Option asset was 7 then transferred by Resles to defendant SNY Capital Group LLC, a corporation owned entirely by Resles's wife, for no consideration and without plaintiffs consent (id*, 40). 7 The July 20 10 Settlement Agreement also provided that Resles, on behalf of Oxford, would conduct an audit of 554-556's accounts, particularly regarding certain loans and advances made to 554-556 by its majority owner (the Manager Loans) which must be paid before any distribution could be made to a shareholder, such as to Oxford. Manager provided limited financial information to Resles'indicatingthat the Manager Loans were approximately $28.3 million. A notice regarding the auction sale of Oxford's interest in 554-556, however, indicated that the Manager Loans were $24 million, and the terms of the alleged sale of Oxford's interest indicated that the loans were approximately $22.3 million. Plaintiff asserts that Resles has agreed to forgo the audit in exchange for the Lease with Option on the penthouse apartment, then transferred that option to SNY, and to advance other business dealing he has wt Maidman ih (Complaint, 77 44-52). Plaintiff asserts that the overstated value of the Manager Loans will negatively impact the value of Oxford's interest in 554-556, and was used to fraudulently secure ' plh&tiff's agreement not to take the Oxford shares Until the 2007 Note was repaid (id., 53). 7 Plaintiff further alleges that defendants Resles, 554-556 and Manager conspired to prevent plaintiff from conducting the audit by falsely representing in court that Resles was conducting the audit, and forcing plaintiff to spend time and money pursuing the audit (id., 77 60' 62). Finally, plaintiff asserts that Resles is using defendants SNY and IVYS Capital Group, Inc. to hide his income fkom plaintiff and to fraudulently secure plaintiff's the Oxford shares until the 2007 Note was repaid (id.,77 63-77). 1. 4 [* 6] Based on these allegations,plaintiff has asserted two claims against 554-556 and Manager for fiaud (first cause of action) and unjust enrichment (the second cause of action). He asserts that defendants made fraudulent omissions and misrepresentations of fact relating to the 2005 Note and obligations under the Judgment (id. 7 79). He alleges that defendants were aware that they were never going to permit him to secure the Oxford shares, and they conspired to devise impediments, and a sham litigation, to prevent [him] f o wuring the Oxford shares rm (id., 8 1). As part of this conspiracy, Resles, without notice to plaintiff, took the $300,000 loan, fi evidenced by the 2007 Note, and 554-556 and Manager extended the due date on that note; entered into the July 9,20 10 purported settlement further encumbering plaintiff s interest i the n Oxford shares; permitted Resles to fraudulently transfer a valuable asset (the Lease wt Option) ih to SNY for no consideration; and allowed the Oxford shares to be devalued by overstating the li, Manager loans (id., 82-86). In the unjust enrichment c a m plaintiff alleges that by all of the conduct alleged defendants are being unjustly enriched (id, 94-96). 77 In moving to dismiss, 554-556 and Manager urge that the fraud claim is insufficient under CPLR 3016 (b) because it fails to allege what they individually did to defraud plaintiff. In addition, they argue that even if they did devise impediments and a sham litigation, this conduct did not constitute fraud because they did not owe any fiduciary duty to plaintiff, and such a conduct w s not unlawful. With regard to unjust enrichment, defendants urge that plaintiff fails to allege a relationship between him and 554-556 and Manager that could have caused reliance or inducement. DISCUSSION 5 [* 7] r ** The motion to dismiss by 554-556 and Manager is denied. First, plaintiffs fraud claim is sufficient at this early stage to withstand dismissal. To plead a claim for fraud, a plaintiff must allege a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and damages (Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]). Plaintiff must sufficiently identify the misrepresentations by defendants, and when and how they were made to plaintiff, and identify the individual defendant s roles in the alleged fkaud (see MBL4 Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 87 AD3d 287,295 [ 1 Dept 201 13). The fraud claim must be pleaded wt the particularity required ih under CPLR 3016 (b). That provision, however, should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent a otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in n * detail the circumstances constituting a fraud (Pludeman v Northern Leasing as., Inc., 10 NY3d 486,491 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Plaintiff need not present unassailable proof at this early stage, but instead, need simply allege the basic facts to establish the claim (id.at 492). The facts must be sufEcient to permit a reasonable inference of defendant s knowledge of or participation in the fraudulent conduct (id.;see aho Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d at 559). As alleged in the complaint, the fraud in this case w s not an isolated incident of a single a a misrepresentation. Rather, it w s a scheme allegedly orchestrated by 554-556 and Manager. This scheme allegedly began when plaintiff was seeking the Judgment on his 2005 Note and As a threshold issue, plaintiff asserts that defendants motion is defective, because they fail to annex the complaint to the motion. While plaintiff is correct that this failure is a procedural defect which could warrant denial, defendants have cured the defect by supplying a copy of the complaint as an exhibit to their reply (see Stemstein v Metropolitan Ave. Dev., LLC, 32 Misc 3d 1207 [A], 201 1 NY Slip Op 51206 [VI [Sup Ct, Kings County 201 13 [defendant cured procedural defect of failing to submit copy of pleading by submitting on rely]). 6 [* 8] . looking to the collateral, the Oxford shares, given as security. It continued when 554-556 gave Resles a sham loan, which Resles was not going to repay, using that same collateral, without i notifying plaintiff and to prevent h m from securing the shares. Then 554-556 and Manager commenced a sham litigation with Resles so that they could purportedly enter into the settlement which extended that 2007 Note for a significant time period, gave Reslcs the Lease with Option on the penthouse, without consideration, and secured plaintiffs agreement not to take the Oxford shares until the 2007 Note was repaid in 2015. 554-556 and Manager then are purported to have materially misrepresented the value of the Manager Loans, which must be repaid before any distribution to shareholders, including Oxford, and, wt Resles, ih misrepresented that an audit was being conducted to determine that value, also in order to secure plaintiff s agreement not to seek a sale of the Oxford shares, and to prevent recovery on the Judgment (see Exhibits E, F, H and I annexed to Affirmation of Michael Fischman in Opposition). Plaintiff could not have learned the truth about these Manager Loans unless he conducted an audit. He initially sought an order regarding the audit from the court in the Judgment Action, and Resles represented to the court and plaintiff that he was conducting it in December 2010 (Exhibit G to Fischman Affirm.). Resles, however, then gave up his right to conduct the audit in exchange for the right to transfer the b a s e wt Option to SNY, and the ih right to live in the penthouse (Complaint, 7 52). It is also alleged that the ultimate purpose of this scheme was to keep plaintiff Erom satisfying his Judgment, and f o becoming involved in 554-556 and Manager s business affairs, rm or questioning the Manager Loans. These allegations me sufficient to give rise to a reasonable Inc., 10 NY3d at 493). The concrete inference of fraud (see Pludernan v Northern Leasing as., oe facts regarding the 2007 N t ,its default and the sham litigation between the defendants 7 [* 9] regarding that note, are peculiarly within the defendants knowledge, and, at this early stage, it could potentially work an unnecessmy injustice to dismiss this claim where if there is any pleading deficiency it may be cured later in this proceeding after some discovery (see Pludernun v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d at 491-492). Contrary to defendants contention, plaintiff does not have to allege that they owed him a fiduciary duty in order to assert fraud based on these alleged misrepresentations, (see Butas v. Prudential L f e Ini. Co. ofArn., 281 AD2d 260 (1 Dept 2001). Therefore, the fraud claim is sufficiently stated to survive defendants motion, The unjust enrichment claim is also sufficient. To assert a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must allege that a benefit was bestowed by the plaintiff on the defendants, and the defendants have obtained that benefit without adequately compensating plaintiff for it (Sergeants , Benevolent Assn. Annuity Fund v Renck, 19 AD3d 107, I 11-1 12 [1 Dept 20051). The allegations set forth above wt regard to the fiaud claim indicate that a benefit was conferred on ih F: n Oxford shares ip i defendants in that they have obtained the benefit of plain without compensating plaintiff. Bk Conclusion Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to ORDERED that defendants are directed to answer the claim within thirty days of the date of this decision and order; and it is further ORDERED that a preliminary conference shall be held on December 20,2012, at 9:30 am in Part 11, room 351,60 Centre Street, New York, NYfl Dated: O c t o b e 4 0 12 J.S.C. 8 .

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.