Kea Cap Inc. v Eagle Capital Mgt., LLC

[*1] Kea Cap Inc. v Eagle Capital Mgt., LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 50843(U) Decided on May 30, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 30, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570225/14

Kea Cap Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Eagle Capital Management, LLC, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about August 23, 2013, after trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about August 23, 2013, reversed, without costs, action reinstated and matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The dismissal of this commercial small claims action on the basis of plaintiff's claimed status as a dissolved corporation did not achieve "substantial justice" consistent with substantive law principles (see CCA 1804-A, 1807-A). So far as appears from the trial transcript, the issue of plaintiff's alleged dissolution was not raised at trial but, rather, was advanced by defendant for the first time in posttrial correspondence submitted to the court, correspondence not made part of the record on appeal. Even in the context of the "informal and simplified procedures" (CCA 1804-A) governing small claims matters (see generally Ragosto v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 173 Misc 2d 560, 561 [1997]), the irregular procedure followed below prejudiced plaintiff, who was prevented from addressing the belatedly raised dissolution issue. Moreover, even accepting the court's apparent finding that plaintiff was dissolved on October 26, 2011 for nonpayment of taxes (see Tax Law § 203-a), plaintiff had capacity to pursue the underlying February 2012 small claims action - arising from services it rendered prior to its dissolution - in the course of winding up its affairs (see Business Corporation Law § 1006[b]; Tedesco v A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 8 NY3d 243 [2007]; J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc. v Onekey, LLC, 60 AD3d 733 [2009]). We remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary to determine the merits of the action.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 30, 2014