Arche, Inc. v Bob Ellis Shoe Store, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Arche, Inc. v Bob Ellis Shoe Store, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 32951(U) December 13, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 111860/10 Judge: Donna M. Mills 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. SCANNEDON I211712012 ~ [* 1] ARC'IIE, 1NI ',, PI ai iiti ff, -v- BOH El LIS s"Ob; I< A I ,INSK Y , O R ] ? , INC. and BAKKY I 1 fc11d3111b . c . MOTIONCAI, NO. . . . .- The following papers, numbcrcd 1 to I N ot i cc o f Mu li od 0 idcr to Show Cause-A flid av i t s- 17x11i Answering A flidavi Is Ex h i hi ts Replying Affidavits- CRO SS - M ( )'I 1ON : - llpoii the I'oregoing papers, it is order DECIDED D AC'C'ORDANCE W H I I ATTACHE13 MISMORANDT JM IIBC'ISJON. l [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COUN'L'Y OF NEW YORK: PART 5 8 X ARCHE , I N C . , Plaintiff, Irldex N O . : 111860/10 -againstD E C I S T O N AND ORDER BOB E L L I S SHOE STOKE, I N C . and BARRY KZ1LINSKY , 7 Defendants. i i MILLS , J. I I i FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 T1ii.s is a breach of coritracL a c ! d % $ $ $ ~ @ 'Arche, Jnc I GQUN"ru CLE to recover damages against defendants B o b Ellis Show Store Inc. ( " B o b Ellis") and Barry Kalinsky The following facts are not in dispute. This action arises out of busiiicss dealings between plaintiff Arche, Tnc., a shoe wholesalc>r, and. defendant B o b Ellis Show Store, Inc., a retail shoe store. Defendant Barry Kalinsky is the registered agent and Vice President of Bob Ellis. Mr. Kalinslcy has also acted as agent f o r the disclosed principal, B o b E l l i s . Defendant B a r r y Kalinsky moves for an Order granting summary judgment pursuant to C:E)LK 53212 on the grounds that the breach of contract claitn against him is without merit. Plaintiff , Arclie, Inc. opposes the granting of sucli Order or1 the grounds that defendant Kalinsky has failed to meet his burden to adduce sufficient proof to show that there are no material facts in [* 3] d i s p u t e as t o P l a i n t i f f ' s claims a g a i n s t him. DISCUSSION " T h e p r q x m e n t of a summary judgment rnotioiz must m a k e a prima f a c i e s4howiriy of enLitleineiit t o judgment as a m a t t e r of l a w , t e n d e r i n g suff i c i e i i t evidence t o e l i m i n a t e a i m a t e r i a l iy i s s u e s of f a c t from t h e case [ i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n marks and c i t a t t o n omitted] . (1"'.E p t 2 0 0 6 ) D S a n t i a g o v F i l s t e i i ? , 35 A n 3 d 184, 18.5-1.86 The burden then s h i f t s t o t h e m o t i o n ' s opponellt t o "present fact:: i n a d m i s s i b l e form s u f f i c i e n t t o raise a g e n u i n e , t r i a b l e i s s u e of fact.'I Mazurelr v M e t r o p o l i t a n Museum of A r t , 27 AD3d 227, 228 (1"'. Dept 2006) ; see Zuckex-man v C i t y of N e w YOL-lr, 4 3 NY2d 557, 5 6 2 (1380). If t h e r e i s any doubt as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a t r i a b l e fact, t h e motion f o r :;ummary judgment must be d e n i c d . Scc Rotuba h ' x t r u d e m v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 221,23 I (1078). I n s u p p o r t of t h e i r motion f o r summary judgment, M r . Kalinslcy i n an a f f i d a v i t states t h a t he was a n employee of Rob E l l i s f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 2 y e a r s unti.1 2009, a f t e r which time he took on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n after t h e d e a t h of h i s f a t h e r . H e f u r t h e r states Lhat Bob E1'l.j.s began bushes:; d e a l i n g s , w i t h Arche, I n c . i n 2 0 0 3 , and he was only a c t i n g as an a g e n t o f Bob Ellis. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Mr. Kalinsky m a i n t a i n s t1ia.t a l l o r d e r s placed by Rob E 1 I i . . s to A r c f i e were on company I e t t e r h e a d and d i d not conta.1 n any o f hi:; per-sonal i n f o r m a t i o n . Mr . Kalinsky coiicludes by s t a t i n g t h a t he never i n d i v i d u a l l y e n t e r e d into any agreement. or contract w i t h Arche, [* 4] Inc. A n d t - h c r e f o r e should not be held persona.lly liable for any transactions made between Arche , Inc . and R o b Ellis contained within the complaint in this action. Defendant K a l i n s l c y also relies on thc depositton of Ms. Verbrugghen-Campeggi, the President of Arche, Inc., who whcn a s k e d whether she had any factual basis for holding Barry Kalinsky personally responsible she replied that she d i d not. She also conceded that B a r r y Kalinsky never- used his personal bank account to pay for any merchandise in thc seven years that Arche, Tnc. supplied Bob Ellis with merchandise. Tt is quite apparent t.o the Court t h a t Mr. Kalinsky has made a prima facie case in support of summary judgment. As cited earlier, the burden now shifts to plakiiti.ff to "present f a c t s in admissible form sufficient to raise a genuine, triable issue of fact. Mazur-ek v Metropol i tari Museum of A r t , id 2%'. However , in opposit-ionto the defendant motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff has tota.I.ly failed to produce evident.iary proof in admissible form x u f f i , c i e r i t t o raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant Mr. Kalinslcy is personally responsible for the purported debt of Eob Ellis Shoe Store, Inc. (see, Zuckerman v. Ci.ty of New Yorl.;, at 562). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant Barry Kalinsky's motion for summary judgment is granted and the Clerk is directed to enter 3 [* 5] judgment i n f a v o r of s a i d d e f e n d a n t arid t h e c o m p l a i n t lis dismissed with costs and d i s b u r s e m e n t s to s a i d d e f e n d a n t as taxed by t h e C l e r k of t h e Court, and t h e Clerk is d i r e c t c d t o e n t e r judgment a c c o r d i n g l y 1-n f a v o r of s a i d d e f e n d a n t ; and i t is further ORDERED t h a t t h e a c t i o n i s severed and c o n t i n u e d a g a i n s t t h e remaining d e f e n d a n t ; and i t i s further ORDERED t h a t t h e c a p t i o n be amended t o r e f l e c t t h e d i s m i s s a l and t h a t a l l f u t u r e p a p e r s filed w i t h t h e c o u r t bear t h e amended c a p t i o n ; and i t is f u r t h e r ORDERED t h a t counsel f o r t h e moving p a r t y s h a l l s e r v e a copy of t h i s order w i t h n o t i c e of e n t r y upon t h e County C l e r k and t h e Clerk of t h e T r i a l Support O f f i c e who a r e d i r e c t e d t o m a r k t h e c o u r t ' s r e c o r d s t o r e f l e c t the change in t h e caption h e r e i n . ENTER : 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.