Corporate Serv. Bur., Inc. v Law Firm of Hall & Hall, LLP
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 30, 2012
Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County
Corporate Service Bureau, Inc., Plaintiff(s)
against
The Law Firm of Hall & Hall, LLP D/B/A HALL & HALL P.C., Defendant(s).
12R003766
ELLOWS HYMOWITZ & EPSTEIN, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiff
254 South Main Street, Suite 500
P.O. Box 1917
New City, New York 10956
THOMAS J. HALL, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant
57 Beach Street
Staten Island, New York 10304
Orlando Marrazzo Jr., J.
As is set forth below, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in its entirely, and the complaint is dismissed.
In this action plaintiff seeks to recover under the legal theory of unjust enrichment and a claim of account stated from defendant law firm for the agreed upon price and reasonable value for [*2]municipal services and title searching rendered to defendant's law firm at their request. These services include but are not limited to UCC, Tax Lien, Judgment and Bankruptcy Search within the State of New Jersey and copies, reports and disbursements to the Secretary of State New Jersey and Essex County Court Systems.
The Statute of limitations for unjust enrichment pursuant to CPLR §213(2) and prevailing New York Law is six (6) years.
Put another way, the cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment which is indistinguishable from the breach of contract cause of action, must be commenced within the six-year statute of limitation set forth in CPLR § 213(2) (see, EMD Constr. Corp. V New York Dept. Of Hous. Prserv. & Dev., 70 AD3d 893, 894 [2d Dept 2010]; 37 Park Dr. S., Inc. V Duffy, 63 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2d Dept 2009].)
The central issue surrounding the case at bar is whether or not plaintiff's cause of action for unjust enrichment and account stated is barred under the statute of limitations.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Recently the New York State Court of Appeals in HaHn Automotive Warehouse Inc v American Zurich Ins. Co., 18 NY3d 765 [2012] visited the issue of the statute of limitations and its application. As far as this court can tell, this action is the first court action where the holding of HaHan Automotive Warehouse Inc., is being applied to a live controversy, thus perhaps making this decision to be a case of apparent first impression.
In HaHn Automotive Warehouse Inc v American Zurich Ins. Co., the Court of Appeals determined that [u]nder CPLR 213 (2), a claim for breach of contract is governed by a six-year statute of limitations. As a general principle, the statute of limitations begins to run when a cause of action accrues (see CPLR 203 [a]), that is, when all of the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred so that the party would be entitled to obtain relief in court (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169, 175 [1986]). In contract actions, we have recognized that a claim generally accrues at the time of the breach (see Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81 NY2d 399, 402 [1993]). And, we have explained further that when the right to final payment is subject to a condition, the obligation to pay arises and the cause of action accrues, only when the condition has been fulfilled (John J. Kassner & Co. v City of New York, 46 NY2d 544, 550 [1979]).
A consistent line of Appellate Division precedent holds that, where the claim is for payment of a sum of money allegedly owed pursuant to a contract, the cause of action accrues when the [party making the claim] possesses a legal right to demand payment (Minskoff Grant Realty & Mgt. Corp. v 211 Mgr. Corp., 71 AD3d 843, 845 [2d Dept 2010]; see also Kuo v Wall St. Mtge.Bankers, Ltd., 65 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2d Dept 2009]; Swift v New York Med. Coll., 25 AD3d 686, 687 [2d Dept 2006]; Kingsley Arms, Inc. v Copake-Taconic Hills Cent. School Dist., 9 AD3d 696, 698 [3d Dept 2004], lv dismissed3 NY3d 767 [2004]; Albany Specialties v Shenendehowa Cent. School Dist., 307 AD2d 514, 516 [3d Dept 2003]). In other words, the statute of limitations in these cases was triggered when the party that was owed money had the right to demand payment, not when it actually made the demand (see, HaHn Automotive Warehouse Inc v American Zurich Ins. Co., 18 NY3d 765,770-771 [2012].)
Here, the services for which plaintiff seeks recovery were performed on April 21, 2006. [*3]Indeed invoices annexed to plaintiff's complaint state "report with copies were provided to you on April 21, 2006." And the calender date of April 21, 2006 is when the services were allegedly rendered, and the date when the plaintiff allegedly was owed money and had the right to demand payment from the defendant. Thus April 21, 2006 is the date when the statute of limitations began to run. Plaintiff did not file its complaint until May 18, 2012, more than six (6) years after services were rendered, which means plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment are barred by the statute of limitations. This court rejects plaintiff's claim that the correct date when the statute of limitation began to run was from April 20, 2007, the date from when the plaintiff allegedly made a demand for payment from the defendant. As the Hahn court found to hold otherwise would allow potential plaintiffs, "to extend the statute of limitations indefinitely by simply failing to make a demand." Id. at 771.
Accordingly, defendant has proved that plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment is time barred by the statute of limitations.
The court further notes that plaintiff in its pleadings fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract. The elements necessary to state a cause of action for breach of contract are, "the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance under the contract, the defendant's breach of that contract, and resulting damages" ( see Agway, Inc. v. Curtin, 161 AD2d 1040, 1041; Furia v. Furia, 116 AD2d 694, 695; quoted by JP Morgan Chase j J.H. Elec. Of New York, Inc., 69 AD3d 802, 803 [2d Dept 2010].)
The court notes that plaintiff in its affirmation in opposition to defendant's motion attaches a copy of purported invoices. Plaintiff fails to attach a copy of the contract that they allegedly entered into with the defendant. Therefore, the complaint fails to state a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract ( see CPLR 3211[a][7] ).
ACCOUNT STATED
In this action plaintiff seeks to recover on a claim for an account stated. It is well settled that under New York Law, "A claim for an account stated must demonstrate that (1) an account was presented, (2) the account was accepted as correct and (3) the debtor promised to pay the amount stated ( Nanjing Textiles IMP/EXP Corp., Ltd. v. NCC Sportswear Corp., [2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56111, 2006 WL 2337186 (S.D.NY Aug. 11, 2006)]; Jim Mar Corp. v. Aquatic Constr., 195 AD2d 868, 869 [3d Dep't], lv. denied, 82 NY2d 660 (1993); Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl v. Daelen Corp., 59 AD2d 375 [1st Dep't 1977]; quoted by Fox Linen Service, Inc., v Brentwood Golf & Country Club, 26 Misc 3d 1225(A) [District Court Suffolk County 2010].)
Here, the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid account or the existence of sums due under a valid contract. Therefore, plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action for an account stated.
Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: July 30, 2012
__________________
Orlando Marrazzo, Jr., [*4]
Judge, Civil Court
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.
