Eastside Floor Serv., Ltd. v Ibex Constr., LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Eastside Floor Serv., Ltd. v Ibex Constr., LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 33416(U) August 15, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 108977/09 Judge: Anil C. Singh 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 08/28/2012 1] INDEX NO. 108977/2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PART PRESENT: .-b.\_ .. Justice INDEX NO. MOTION DATE - v MOTION SEQ. NO. CC)\ ~:....:,.._ ____ MOTION CAL. NO. The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ were read on this motion to/for - - - - - - PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause Answering Affidavits - Affidavits - Exhibits ... Exhibits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e -n Replying A f f i d a v i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - en . Cross- Mot1on: z 0 ct w a: C!1 wz (J i= ~ en ..J C Yes J r-i l__; No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion :::> ..J -, 0 0 LL ~w c :c w~ a: a: a: 0 ~ w LL a: > ..J ..J :::> LL ~ (J w Q. en w a: en ~~. w en ct z 0 0 ~ 0 2 ... ___ Dated: ·--- £5 L I ' - fr'[ L s Sf:NGH J.S.C. UPREME COURT JUSTttE FINAL DISPOSITION Check i~ ~ON-FINAL DISPOSITION '.J DO NOT POST :~ SUBMIT ORDER/J\JDG____ _ 1 [~ REFERENCE SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 61 : _______________________________________________________:______________ x EASTSIDE FLOOR SERVICES, LTD, Plaintiff, :I Index No. 108977/09 -againstIBEX CONSTRUCTION, LLC and WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ' Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------~--------------X ·I IBEX CONSTRUCTION, LLC, .i 'j Third-Party ·plaintiff, Index No. 590313/11 -againstECLIPSE DEVELOPMENT, INC. and EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., I Third-Party Defendants. ______________________________________________________:I______________ x 'I SINGH, J.: :! J :1 In this action for breach of contract a~d an account stated, third-party plaintiff, Ibex Construction, LLC (Ibex) seeks dismissal o(third-party defendants Eclipse Development, Inc. I 'I (Eclipse) and Equinox Holdings, Inc.'s (Equinox) first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh I , counterclaims, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (3) and (7), on the grounds of a defense founded I upon documentary evidence, the party asserting the action does not have the legal capacity to sue, .1 ¢i ' and the pleading fails to state a cause of action. :i Ibex is a construction company authorized to do business in the state of New York. Eclipse is a wholly owned subsidiary: of Equinox and serves as the construction manager [* 3] and Equinox's representative for the development of Equinox Fitness Clubs. Equinox is a :I " Delaware corporation. It owns and operates fitness centers across the country. It has several i locations in New York City, one of which is located at 208 West 76 1h Street (Premises). The underlying action involves a claim by Eastside Floor Services, Ltd. (Eastside) based ! . ' on Ibex's failure to remit payment for materials and labor provided in the installation of wood flooring at the Premises, as per a subcontracting agreement. It is . seeking damages in the amount I I of $132,777. Ibex subsequently commenced a third-party action against Eclipse and Equinox for breach of contract and an account stated. Ibex alleges that on July 30, 2008, Eclipse hired it as the general contractor for a i construction project at the Premises. The parties signed an agreement (Contract) and Ibex subsequently entered into a subcontract agre~ment with Eastside. Ibex further alleges that it timely commenced performance under the Contract and completed the renovations at the Premises. However, Eclipse has failed to pay Ibex for the work completed, despite Ibex's I repeated demand for payment. ,j 'I In the answer to the third-party complaint, Eclipse and Equinox assert that Ibex had a December 26, 2008 deadline to complete work at the Premises prior to its January 2009 opening. I The parties agreed to a guaranteed maximum price of $7.35 million dollars for the work. Eclipse I and Equinox devoted a substantial amount of human and financial resources to develop, market, and promote the event. Despite Ibex's assurances, Ibex failed to complete the project prior to the I deadline. The Premises opened to the public. on February 12, 2009, and much of the contracted <I ·1 work remained incomplete following Ibex's cessation of the work. After Ibex discontinued its work at the Premises, Eclipse and Equinox were forced to compensate subcontractors for their I I ' 2 [* 4] I work at the Premises because Ibex failed to pay them from the designated trust account. They I also incurred additional costs after several subcontractors filed a mechanic's lien on the I ;I ~1 Premises. :1 As a result, Eclipse and Equinox combenced a third-party counterclaim against Ibex :1 'I ,, alleging causes of action for fraud, negligenc~, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violations of trust provisions of the New York Lien Law. They are seeking damages in excess of $3,000,000, together with interest, costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney's fees. I Ibex argues that it is entitled to dismissal of Eclipse and Equinox's counterclaims for: (1) I fraud, (2) negligence, (3) promissory estoppel, and (4) unjust enrichment because those claims I I are duplicative of the breach of contract claim. Ibex also argues that Eclipse and Equinox lack standing to assert claims based upon alleged violations of the New York Lien Law because: (1) I as owners of the project, the third-party defendants are not beneficiaries within the meaning of I I I Article 3-A of the Lien Law, and (2) pursuant to Lien Law§ 77 (2), the action is time-barred. ;: Ibex also argues that Equinox has no standing to bring a counterclaim for breach of contract ;i because it is not a signatory to the Contract. :! ,, Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), Ibex i,s entitled is dismissal of Eclipse's first, second, third and fourth counterclaims for fraud, negligence, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. The parties' transactions are controlled by an; express agreement, and thus their rights and liabilities are to be determined solely on theories of breach of contract. I In order to prevail on a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence, the documents i relied upon must definitely dispose of plaintiffs claim (Blonder & Co. Inc. v Citibank, NA., 28 3 [* 5] AD3d 180, 182 [pt Dept 2006]). Section 4.3; of the Contract1 provides: "The Contractor shall I I I achieve Substantial Completion of the entire ;work not later than December 26, 2008" (Exhibit A 1 i! . to Affirmation of Eric P. Blaha, dated Octob~r 12, 2011) (Blaha Aff.). Section 5.2.1 of the Contract further provides: "The sum of the Cost of the Work and the Contractor's Fee is guaranteed by the Conttactor not to exceed Seven Million Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($7,350,000.00), subject to additions and deductions by Change Order as provided in the Contract Documents. Such maximum sum is referred to in the Contrac1Documents as the Guaranteed Maximum Price. Costs which would cause the Guaranteed Maximum Price to be exceeded shall be paid by the Contractor without reimbursement by the Owner" ·i I (Exhibit A to Blaha Aff.). Eclipse's first counterclaim is for fraud. Eclipse's alleges that Ibex committed fraud when it entered into an agreement with Eclipse and Equinox to make improvements to the I . I Premises by December 2008, for the guaranteed price of $7.35 million dollars, and then failed to :j adhere to those terms. :1 ;! "A fraud claim may coexist with a breach of contract cause of action only where the alleged fraud constitutes the breach of a dutyjseparate and apart from the duty to abide by the I terms of the contract" (Verizon N. Y, Inc. v Optical Communications Group, Inc., 91 AD3d 176, i 179-180 [1st Dept 2011 ]). However, as in thi.s case, "[a] cause of action alleging fraud does not ¢I ·I ., . 1 The Contract consists of: AIA Document Al 11-1997 titled "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor where the basis for payment is COST OF THE WORK PLUS A FEE with a negotiated Gua~anteed Maximum Price," dated October 21, 2008 (including attachments therein), and accompanying AIA Document A201-1997 titled "General Conditions of the Contract for Construction.': See Exhibit C to Affidavit of Jeffrey M. Weinhaus, dated October 14, 2011. 4 [* 6] . 1. . lie where the only fraud claim relates to a breach of contract ... A present intent to deceive must I be alleged and a mere misrepresentation of an intention to perform under the contract is I insufficient to allege fraud" (Ross v DeLoreryzo, 28 AD3d 631, 636 [2d Dept 2006] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). :I Eclipse and Equinox do not allege that they were induceq to enter the agreement by a misrepresentation of any material fact collat~ral to the Contract. The allegations for fraud arise out of the identical facts and circumstances a's their fifth counterclaim alleging breach of contract. I I Any allegation that there was a misrepresentation of an intention to perform under the contract is I I insufficient to sustain a counterclaim alleging fraud in the case at bar (id.). ·1 ., Ibex is entitled to dismissal of Eclips~'s second counterclaim for negligence. "[M]erely alleging that a party breached a contract because it failed to act with due care will not transform a strict breach of contract claim into a negligence claim" (Verizon N. Y, Inc. v Optical : Communications Group, Inc., 91 AD3d at 1~O). In this context, the harm alleged is merely I economic and the Court of Appeals has declined to extend a legal duty beyond a contractual ., .I obligation in cases involving only economic harm (New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 I . :1 NY2d 308 [ 1995]). Thus, "a tort cause of action that is based upon the same facts underlying a contract claim will be dismissed as a mere duplication of the coi:itract cause of action," I particularly where, as here, both seek identickl damages (Duane Reade v SL Green Operating I i Partnership, LP, 30 AD3d 189, 190 [1st Dept 2006]). I I i Ibex is also entitled to dismissal of Eclipse's third counterclaim based on promissory ~ estoppel. A claim for promissory estoppel cannot stand when there is an existing contract . ~ between the parties (see Susman v Commerzbank Capital Mkts. Corp., 95 AD3d 589, 590 [P1 5 [* 7] Dept 2012]). Ibex is entitled to dismissal of Eclips~'s fourth counterclaim for unjust enrichment. The I I parties' transactions are controlled by an express agreement, and thus "their rights and liabilities I are to be determined solely on theories of br~jach of contract" (Apfel v Prudential-Bache Sec., 81 .i NY2d 470, 479 [1993]). Ibex is entitled to dismissal of Equinox's fifth counterclaim for breach of contract because it lacks legal capacity to sue. In a motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3), I ] dismissal will be granted when the movant e~tablishes that the party asserting the claim lacks Bank v Evans, 31 AD3d 278, 279 [ 151 Dept 2006]). legal capacity to sue (see Security Pac. Natl. ; 1 The doctrine of legal capacity "concerns a litigant's power to appear and bring its grievance I I before the court" (id.). Here, it appears that the issue involves Equinox's standing. Equinox is J ' ' not a signatory to the Contract alleged to have been breached. Accordingly, Equinox lacks standing to recover damages for said counterclaim. I I Although Eclipse and Equinox have established that they have the legal capacity to sue in I I the sixth and seventh counterclaims, Ibex ha~ demonstrated its entitlement to dismissal of those ;l claims because they are time-barred under se~tion 77 (2) of the Lien Law. As stated above, in a motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3), dismissal will be i granted when the movant establishes that the'I party asserting the claim lacks legal capacity to sue I ¢I (see Security Pac. Natl, Bank v Evans, 31 AD3d 278, supra). "Article 3-A of the Lien Law creates 'trust funds out of certain construction payments or .i ' funds to assure payment of subcontractors, suppliers, architects, engineers, laborers, as well as I specified taxes and expenses of constructionj" (Ippolito v TJC Dev., LLC, 83 AD3d 57, 64 [2d J ,, 6 [* 8] Dept 2011] [citation omitted]). Section 70 defines trusts created thereunder. It provides, in part: ; I "The funds described in this s~ction ... received by a contractor under or in connection with a contract for an improvement of real property, J or home improvement, or a co.ntract for a public improvement in this state, or received by a subcontractor under or in corui.ection with a subcontract made with the codtractor for such improvement of real property including a home improvement contract or public improvement or made with any subcontractor under any such contract, and any right of action for any such funds due or earned or to become due or earned, shall constitute assets of a trust for the purposes provided is section seventy-one of this chapter." : I (Lien Law § 70 [ 1]). Lien Law § 77 (1) provides: :1 "A trust arising under this arti,ble may be enforced by the holder of any trust claim, including any " person subrogated to the righ(of a beneficiary of the trust holding a trust claim." ,, 1 Eclipse and Equinox argue that Ibex neglected to remit payment to its subcontractors, including i Eastside, for their completed work. They alsp allege that in order to save their own property they I were forced to pay a mechanic's lien due to I?ex's failure to pay or arrange for direct payment to I J said subcontractors, and thus, they have subrogated rights and, consequently, standing to enforce :1 the trust. The equitable doctrine of subrogation "is 'applicable to cases, [like here], where a party ., :,1 is compelled to pay the debt of a third perso~ to protect his own rights, or to save his own property'" (Broadway Houston Mack Dev., LLC, v Kohl, 71 AD3d 937, 937 [2d Dept 2010]). Thus, Eclipse and Equinox have demonstrated their legal right to assert the sixth and seventh I ; counterclaims in this action. I 7 [* 9] :1 However, the sixth and seventh counterclaims are time-barred under section 77 (2) of the Lien Law. It provides in part: "Such action may be maintained at any time during the improvement of real property .... No such action shall be maintainable if I commenced more than one year after the completion of such improvement, or in the case of subcontractors or tjlaterialman, after the expiration of one year from the date on which final payment Jnder the claimant's contract became due, whichever is later, except an action by the trustee for final settlement of his accounts and for his discharge" I (Lien Law§ 77 [2]). Herein, the work at the Premises was completed in February 2009. ' ' I Equinox and Eclipse filed an answer to the third-party complaint along with its counterclaims on I June 16, 2011, a date that was commenced more than one year after the completion of said improvements (Exhibit K to Blaha Aff.). Eclipse and Equinox argue that their sixth and seventh counterclaims are timely under CPLR 203 because they relate back to virtua(ly identical issues brought by Eastside in the ,I underlying action. Contrary to Eclipse and Equinox's contentions, the sixth and seventh 11 'I counterclaims are not saved by CPLR 203. "[C]ounterclaims relate back only to the interposition 'I of the third-party complaint" (Benedict v Whi.tman Breed Abbott & Morgan, 77 AD3d 867, 869 [2d Dept 20 I OJ). Here, the third-party compl,aint was interposed in April 2011. As mentioned above, Ibex ceased its work in January of 2009, and, thus, CPLR 203 does not prevent the sixth I and seventh counterclaims from being time-barred. Accordingly, it is 8 [* 10] I ;! ·.1 ~ :I ORDERED Ibex Construction, LLC'~ motion to dismiss ''is granted as follows: the first, 'i < second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh counterclaims of the third-party complaint are dismissed .1 if against Eclipse Development, Inc., and the fitst, fifth, sixth and sevenths counterclaims of the I :1 third-party complaint are dismissed against Equinox Holdings, Inc.; and it is further . ORDERED that the action in all other respects continues - :J S{ toi '"ENTER: J. S. C. '----2.__ 'I HON. ANIL C. SINGH ;I SUPREME COURT JUSTI'CE ' : 1 : :I Dated: '. ; 1 9

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.