SRL v Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SRL v Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 33462(U) August 22, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651928/2011 Judge: Eileen Bransten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2012 1] INDEX NO. 651928/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY \EBILtElElM ~~AIMSiflEN PRESENT: PART Justice (e sl °I ?f/7u I MOTION DATE 3/ 2 f// 2. r Index Number: 651928/2011 INDEX NO. TABIBNIA, SRL I :3, VS. KHALEDI ORIENTAL RUGS, INC. SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION SEQ. NO. Q'.) I DISM ACTION/INCONVENIENT FORUM The following papers, numbered 1 to _3'.__ , were read on this motion to/for __,d=--1....:S:....:V'VL'----"::.;..;....:::s_S _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits---------------- Replying A f f i d a v i t s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I No(s)._ __.__ _ __ I No(s). _ _-z..-'"----I No(s). --~--- Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is w u i= rn .., ::::> 0 t- o w 0::: 0::: w u.. w 0::: ¢ ¢ >- ..... ...I z ::::> 0 u.. rn ...I~ ..... < w a: g, (!) w z 0::: (/) 3: ¢. ~ ,~ u w ·('.,. r'. - 0 w ...I rn ...I 0 i= 0 :::E 0::: < u.. u 0 - w z :I: ..... 0 u.. Dated:1- LL - \ 2_ 1. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... D 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: 0 0 0 GRANTED 0' NON-FINAL DISPOSITIO CASE DISPOSED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ............................ ¢................... 0 DENIED 0 0 GRANTED IN PART 0 SETILE ORDER DO NOT POST 0 OTHE SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0 REFERENC [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK- NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. Eileen Bransten, Justice PART 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------)( TABIBNIA SRL, Plaintiff, lnde:x No.: 651928/2011 Motion Date: 3/25/2012 Motion Seq. No.: 001 -againstw KHALEDI ORIENTAL RUGS, INC. and MEDHI KHALEDI, J: 1-- 0:: 0 Defendants. LL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------)( The following papers, numbered 1 to 3, were read on this motion to dismiss. Papers Numbered Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits 1 Answering Affidavits - Exhibits 2 j:: Replying Affidavits 3 ::::> .., Cross-Motion: D Yes w (.) rn X No 0 1-- c w 0:: 0:: w LL. w 0:: ~ ...J ::::> LL. 1-(.) .. w- £l. ~ rn z WO o:: rn rn < -w w 0:: rn e> Upon review of the motion dismiss and complaint in the above-captioned action, it is clear that the matter does not meet the standards for assignment to the Commercial Division. See Uniform Rules for Trial Courts [22 NYCRR] § 202.70. The matter, including Plaintiffs fully submitted motion to compel disclosure, Mot. Seq. No. 003, is directed to the Trial Support office for random re-assignment to a non-Commercial Division judge. Motion Sequence Number 001 is decided pursuant to the accompanying memorandum decision. 0-- ~ <z - (.) - 3: zo 0 ...J Dated: AugustL2.._, 2012 Hon. Eileen Bransten, J.S.C. 1-- ...J Oo :!: \e-___\\ ~~ t(~ LL. Check One: D FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: D DO NOT POST D REFERENCE X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION D SETTLE/SUBMITORDER/JUDG. [* 3] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK; I{\.S PART THREE --------------------------------------------------------------------){ T ABIBNIA SRL, Plaintiff, -against- Index No. 651928/2011 Motion Date: 3/25112 Motion Seq. No.: 001 KHALEDI ORIENTAL RUGS, INC. and MEDHI KHALEDI, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------){ BRANSTEN, J. Defendants Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. ("KOR") and Medhi Khaledi ("Khaledi") (collectively, "Defendants") move to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff Tabibnia SRL ("Plaintiff") opposes. I. Background This case arises from a dispute concerning the purchase of an antique carpet. Plaintiff is an Italian company that specializes in antique textiles. 1 Complaint ("Compl"), ~ 2. Moshe Tabibnia ("Tabibnia") is the owner of Plaintiff company. Id. Defendant KOR is a New York corporation that is also in the antique carpet business. Id. at~ 3. Khaledi owns KOR. Id. In early April, 2011, Tabibnia became aware of an antique carpet (the "Carpet") that the Pennsylvania auction company Pook & Pook, Inc. (the "Auction House") was to auction off on April 16, 2011 (the "Auction"). 1 Unless otherwise noted, all facts are drawn from the Complaint and are accepted as true for the purposes of this motion to dismiss. Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 (l 994). [* 4] Tabibnia SRL v. Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Medhi Khaledi Index No. 651928/2011 Page 2 On April 14, 2011, Khaledi e-mailed Tabibnia to ask him to look at a picture of the carpet and see ifTabibnia liked it. Id. at ,-i 17. Tabibnia responded that he was already" aware of the Carpet and the Auction. Id. at ,-i 17. Prior to the Auction, Tabibnia, who lives in Milan, Italy, attempted to secure one of a limited number of telephone bid lines for the Auction. Id. at ,-i 18. A telephone bid line would have enabled him to remotely place live bids for the Carpet. Id. Unable to secure a telephone bid line, Tabibnia unsuccessfully attempted to contact several carpet dealers to inquire if they had access to a telephone bid line and would they be willing to partner with Plaintiff to bid for the Carpet. Id. at ,-i 19. On the morning of the Auction, Tabibnia called Khaledi to ask if Khaledi would ' purchase the Carpet with Plaintiff. Id. at ,-i 20. Khaledi agreed to partner with Plaintiff to purchase the Carpet using a telephone bid line that Khaledi had secured. Id. Khaledi and Tabibnia agreed that, if they were successful in obtaining the Carpet, KOR and Plaintiff would share the cost of the Carpet and would each have a fifty percent ownership interest therein. Id. Throughout the Auction, Tabibnia and Khaledi consulted with one another regarding their bidding strategy. Id. at ,-i 24. Khaledi acquired the Carpet at the Auction (or $63,990. Id. at ,-i 25. Plaintiff claims that the parties planned for Tabibnia to travel to New York [* 5] Tabibnia SRL v. Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Medhi Khaledi Index No. 651928/2011 Page 3 following the Auction to view the Carpet and to reimburse Khaledi for half of the Carpet's purchase price. Id. at~ 31. On April 25, 2011, before Tabibnia arrived in New York, Khaledi unilaterally sold the Carpet for $73,900 to an unidentified purchaser. Affidavit of Hassan Khaledi, Improperly Pied as Medhi Khaledi, in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Khaledi Aff."), Ex. H. Plaintiff then brought the instant action to enforce the alleged oral partnership agreement between the parties. Plaintiff brings causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment. Plaintiff also seeks a permanent injunction, a declaratory judgment2 and a constructive trust. Khaledi denies that the parties entered into an oral partnership agreement. II. Standard of Law "On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction." Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 (1994). The court accepts the facts as alleged in the non-moving party's pleading as true and accords the non-moving party the benefit of every possible favorable inference. Id. 2 Although Plaintiff labels the claim as one for "equitable estoppel," the relief it seeks therein is a permanent injunction and a declaratory judgment. Compl., ~~ 52-57. [* 6] Tabibnia SRL v. Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Medhi Khaledi Index No. 651928/2011 Page 4 III. Discussion Defendants raise three principal arguments in support of their motion to dismiss. First, Defendants contend that Plaintiff may not bring the instant action in New York court because it is not registered to do business in New York. Second, Defendants maintain that the action should be brought in Pennsylvania, not New York. Third, Defendants claim that the alleged oral partnership agreement Plaintiff seeks to enforce is an illegal pooling agreement that violates U.S. anti-trust law. Fourth, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege the elements of an oral partnership. Finally, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs claim for an injunction prohibiting Defendants from selling the Carpet is moot because the Carpet has already been sold. The court addresses each argument in turn. A. Authorization to Do Business in New York Defendants claim that, under Business Corporations Law ("BCL") § 1312, Plaintiff, a foreign corporation, may not bring an action in New York courts unless it is registered to do business in New York. BCL § 1312 provides that"[ a] foreign corporation doing business in the state without authority shall not maintain any action or special proceeding in this state unless and until such corporation has been authorized to do business in this state." Since Business Corporation' Law§ 1312 constitutes a statutory barrier to [a] foreign corporation's right to bring suit, the party seeking to impose the barrier, in order to rebut the presumption that the corporation does business in its state of incorporation rather than New York, has the burden of proving that [* 7] Tabibnia SRL v. Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Medhi Khaledi Index No. 651928/2011 Page 5 the foreign corporation's activity in New York is systematic and regular. ... The burden of showing 'doing business' is therefore a heavy one since a lesser showing might infringe on Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. AirtranN. Y, LLCv. Midwest Air Group, Inc., 46 A.D.3d 208, 214 (lstDep't2007) (internal citations omitted). Khaledi asserts in his affidavit that he has "had professional dealings with [Tabibnia] and [Plaintiff] on numerous occasions over the years and know[ s] that [Tabibnia] personally comes to New York to engage in business on a regular basis." Khaledi Aff., p. 2. Khaledi does not claim that the _business he conducted with Plaintiff or Tabibnia took place in New York. Neither does Khaledi assert that Tabibnia was conducting business on Plaintiffs behalf when he "personally ... engage[d] in business" in New York. Id. Defendants put forth only pictures from the internet in support of their contention that Plaintiff systematically and regularly does business in New York. The pictures purportedly depict Tabibnia and his wife attending an oriental rug symposium at the New York Historical Society. Khaledi Aff., Ex. B. Defendants do not explain how attending such an event could possibly constitute systematic and regular business activity in New York. Defendants fail to meet their "heavy burden" of establishing that Plaintiff regularly does business in New York. Airtran N. Y, LLC, 46 A.D.3d at 214. As a foreign corporation, Plaintiff, therefore, need not obtain authorization to do business in N~w York prior to [* 8] Tabibnia SRL v. Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Medhi Khaledi Index No. 651928/2011 Page 6 bringing suit in the New York courts. BCL § 1312. Defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds of Plaintiffs alleged failure to comply with BCL § 1312 is thus denied. B. Bid Pooling and Antitrust Law Defendants claim that the alleged oral partnership agreement between the parties is a "pooling activity" that is illegal under U.S. antitrust law. Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Kaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Mehdi Khaledi's Motion to Dismiss, pp. 6-7. Defendants assert that the alleged oral partnership had a "chilling effect" on competitive bidding at the Auction. Section 1.2 of the Federal Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors (the "Antitrust Guidelines") provides that agreements between competitors: are analyzed under the rule of reason to determine their overall competitive effect. ... The central question is whether the relevant agreement likely harms competition by increasing the ability or incentive profitably to raise price above or reduce output, quality, service, or innovation below what likely would prevail in the absence of the relevant agreement. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors § 1.2 (2000). Defendants present only their conclusory allegations and no evidence that the alleged oral partnership agreement was formed with an intent to "chill bidding" or that it produced such an effect. The alleged agreement did not reduce the number of bidders participating in [* 9] Tabibnia SRL v. Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Medhi Khaledi Index No. 651928/2011 Page 7 the auction, but instead permitted a bidder, Plaintiff, to participate in an auction in which it would otherwise have not been able to place live bids. ./ Defendant argues that Plaintiff could have independently participated in the Auction without Defendants' assistance by bidding online. Whether or not this is the case is a factual issue that is not appropriate for determination on a motion to dismiss. Furthermore, Defendants do not explain how the alleged oral partnership had the effect of stifling competition, even if Plaintiff could have independently bid in the Auction. Defendants fail to establish that the alleged oral partnership between Plaintiff and Defendants was illegal. Construing all facts in favor of the Plaintiff, as the court must on a motion to dismiss, the alleged oral partnership between the parties did not violate antitrust laws. Leon, 84 N.Y.2d at 88. Defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the alleged oral partnership is unenforceable due to illegality is denied. C. Venue Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should have brought the instant action in Pennsylvania rather than in New York. In doing so, Defendants attempt to enforce a forum selection clause contained in the Auction House's "Conditions of Sale" requiring that all actions be brought in Pennslyvania. Khaledi Aff., Ex. F, p. 2. The forum selection clause governs disputes between a purchaser and the Auction House, not between two purchasers who are unrelated to the Auction House. Id. Defendants [* 10] Tabibnia SRL v. Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Medhi Khaledi Index No. 65 I 928/20 I I Page 8 provide no basis upon which the court may enforce the Auction House's forum selection clause in an action in which the Auction House is not a party. Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied. D. Failure to Adequately Allege an Oral Partnership Defendants next argue that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege the elements of an oral partnership. Defendants claim that Plaintiff alleged only that the oral partnership agreement provided for the equal sharing pro,fits, but not losses. "It is axiomatic that the essential elements of a partnership must include an agreement between the principals to share losses as well as profits." Chanler v. Roberts, 200 A.D.2d 489, 491 (1st Dep't 1994). Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the parties would share both profits and losses. First, Plaintiff claims that the parties agreed to share the cost of the Carpet. Although Plaintiff admits that it never paid its share of the Carpet's purchase price, Plaintiff claims that it was unable to do so because Defendants renounced the alleged oral partnership before Plaintiff had an opportunity to reimburse Defendants. Second, Plaintiff claims that the parties agreed that Plaintiff and KOR would equally share ownership of the Carpet. Under the alleged oral partnership agreement, if the Carpet had been sold at a loss, then Plaintiff and KOR would have borne the loss equally, as they ( each held a fifty percent ownership interest in the Carpet. [* 11] Tabibnia SRL v. Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Medhi Khaledi Index No. 651928/2011 Page 9 Reading the complaint liberally in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Leon, 84 N.Y.2d at 88., Plaintiff sufficiently alleges the elements of an oral partnership. Chanler, 200 A.D.2d at 491. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied. E. Injunctive Relief Defendants assert that Plaintiffs demand for injunctive relief preventing Defendants from selling the carpet is moot because Defendants sold the Carpet well before Plaintiff filed the instant action. In support of its contention, Defendants provide Khaledi' s sworn affidavit and an invoice showing t?at the Carpet was sold to an unidentified purchaser on April 25, 2011 for $73,900. Khaledi Aff., Ex. H. In its brief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants may not have actually sold the Carpet, and accuses Defendants of altering or fabricating the invoice. Memorandum of Law of Plaintiff Tabibnia SRL in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, p. 15. Plaintiffs provide no evidence rebutting Khaledi's sworn affidavit or disproving the authenticity or accuracy of the invoice proffered by Defendants. Nor does Plaintiff cite any case law in support of its position that the court should ignore Defendants' documentary evidence and sworn affidavit. In light of Defendants' evidence that the Carpet was sold over a year ago, Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief and a constructive trust preventing Defendants from selling the carpet are dismissed as moot. [* 12] Tabibnia SRL v. Khaledi Oriental Rugs, Inc. and Medhi Khaledi Index No. 651928/2011 Page 10 IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants Khaledi Oreintal Rugs, Inc. and Mehdi Khaledi' s motion to dismiss is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs causes of action for a permanent injunction and a constructive trust preventing Defendants from selling the Carpet are dismissed as moot. Defendants' motion to dismiss is otherwise denied; and it is further ORDERED that defendant is directed to serve an answer to the complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further ORDERED that, upon review of the motion dismiss and complaint in the abovecaptioned action, it is clear that the matter does not meet the standards for assignment to the Commercial Division. See Uniform Rules for Trial Courts [22 NYCRR] § 202.70. The matter, including Plaintiffs fully submitted motion to compel disclosure, Mot. Seq. No. 003, is directed to the Trial Support office for random re-assignment to a non-Commercial Division judge. Dated: New York, New York August 22, 2012 ENTER: Hon. Eileen Bransten, J.S.C.

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.