Abraham Cohen & Collins Cash, Inc. v Pearl Capital Rivis Ventures LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Abraham Cohen & Collins Cash, Inc. v Pearl Capital Rivis Ventures LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 31267(U) July 21, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 162309/2014 Judge: Debra A. James 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. [* 1] INDEX NO. 162309/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 91 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: DEBRA A. JAMES PART 59 Justice ABRAHAM COHEN and COLLINS CASH, INC., Index No.: Plaintiffs, 162309/2014 Motion Date: -v- 07/21/15 Motion Seq. No.: 002 & 003 PEARL CAPITAL RIVIS VENTURES LLC, MEIR HURWITZ, AVRAHAM ZEINES and ARI KAPLAN, Defendants. The following papers, numbered 1 to _were read on this motion for a more definite statement/ dismiss and cross motion for leave to extend time to serve process/to compel answer Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause -Affidavits -Exhibits 00 1 Notice of Cross Motion/Answering Affidavits - Exhibits z 0 No(s). No(s). 2 Replying Affidavits - Exhibits No(s). 3 w (/) (.) <( _w ..... 0::: Cross-Motion: 181 Yes D No (/) C) ~~ o~ Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that the motion for a more definite statement shall 1-0 c...J w...J granted and the cross motion for sanctions against defendants and to compel defendants to u. ::c: answer shall be denied. It is further ordered that the motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent o:::O 0::: u. WW w ..... 0::: 0::: >- 0 :J u. that it seeks dismissal of the complaint against defendant Meir Hurwitz for lack of personal :::> u. ..... jurisdiction and dismissal of the complaint against the individual defendants for failure to state a (.) w Q. (/) cause of action shall be granted and the cross motion of plaintiffs to the extent that it seeks an 0::: ~ extension of time to serve process upon defendant Meir Hurwitz shall be granted. w w (/) <( ~ z 0 Motion Sequence Numbers 002 and 003 are consolidated for j:: 0 ~ disposition. 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: MOTION IS: 0 0 GRANTED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: 0 SETTLE ORDER 0 DO NOT POST 1. CHECK ONE: •••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••• 181 CASE DISPOSED 0 DENIED 0 181 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 GRANTED IN PART 0 OTHER SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0 REFERENCE [* 2] The court denies the motion of the individual defendants to dismiss the fifth and sixth causes of action pursuant to Labor Law§§ 193 and 215 commenced by the individual plaintiff. Martinez v Alubon, Ltd, 11 AD3d 500, 501 (1st Dept 2013) See ("Their allegations support holding Boneh personally liable for the Labor Law violations as an 'employer'"). The cross motion to the extent that it seeks to extend plaintiff's time to serve the summons and complaint upon defendant Meir Hurwitz is granted and the time is extended pursuant to 306-b in the interest of justice (Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2011]). As for the motion of defendants for a more definite statement, this court concurs with defendants that the complaint at bar is prolix, completely at odds with the concept of notice pleading, and extremely difficult to understand. This court hereby strikes certain matter, specifically with respect to the decretal paragraph wherein the corporate plaintiff seeks damages for emotional distress and mental anguish, such damages being unavailable to a corporate entity. Plaintiffs shall serve and file a more definite statement in the form of an amended complaint as the pleadings are ambiguous and defendants cannot reasonably be required to frame a response. See Rappaport v Diamond Dealers Club, 95 AD2d 743 (1st Dept 1983) . Such amended , complaint shall be drafted in simple active voice sentences that -2- [* 3] delineate specific cognizable causes of action and factual allegations separately for the individual plaintiff and the corporate plaintiff. The cross motions of plaintiffs for sanctions are themselves without merit and shall be denied. Such cross motions shall also . be denied to the extent that they seek an order compelling defendants to answer for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that motion of defendants to the extent that it seeks an order directing plaintiffs to serve a more definite· statement and striking certain matters (Motion Sequence Number 002) is granted, and matter is stricken from the complaint as stated above, and the cross motion of plaintiffs for sanctions and to compel defendants to serve an answer is denied, and plaintiff shall serve and file an amended complaint within sixty (60) days of the date hereof; and it is further ORDERED that the motion of defendants to the extent that it seeks an order dismissing the fifth and sixth causes of action against defendants Avrham Ze~nes and Ari Kaplan (Motion Sequence Number 003) is denied and the cross motion of plaintiffs to the extent that it seeks to extend their time to serve process upon defendant Meir Hurwitz is granted pursuant to CPLR 306-b, and plaintiffs shall serve and file the amended complaint upon -3- [* 4] defendant Hurwitz within sixty (60) days of the date hereof, and the cross motion is otherwise denied. This is the decision and order of the court. Dated: July 21. 2015 ENTER: t<"' __ J.S.C. D!BRA A. JAMES -4-

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.