LG Capital Funding, LLC v Sanomedics Intl. Holdings, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

LG Capital Funding, LLC v Sanomedics Intl. Holdings, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 32232(U) November 23, 2015 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 508410/2014 Judge: Carolyn E. Demarest 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. 508410/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/23/2015 At an IAS Term, Part Comm-1 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at tl1e Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 23rd day ofNovember, 2015. PRESENT: HON. CAROLYN E. DEMAREST, Justice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X LG CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC, Plaintiff, - against - Index No. 508410/2014 SANOMEDICS INTERNATIONAL l-IOLDINGS, INC. AND MANHATTAN TRANSFER REGISTRAR CO., Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X The following e-filed papers read herein: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 11-31 34 36-38 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 39-46 48 _ _ _ _ _Affidavit (Affirmation) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Memoranda of Law- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32 35 47 In this action by plaintiff LG Capital Funding, LLC (plaintiff) against defendants Sanomedics International Holdings, Inc. (SIH) and Manhattan Transfer Registrar Co. (MTR) (collectively, defendants) alleging the breach of the terms of a securities purchase agreement and two 11otes, plaintiff moves, under motion sequence number one, for an order, pursuant [* 2] to CPLR 3212 (e), (I) granting it partial summary judgment as against defendants on its clai1ns for breach of contract, conversion, and recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, i.e., the second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth causes of action asserted in its amended complaint and awarding it compensatory damages in the amount of $1,364,204.81, plus interest from April 24, 2015, against defendants, jointly and severally, or, in the alternative, granting it partial summary judgment as to liability only, with damages to be detennined at an inquest, (2) severing its second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action from the re1naining causes of action, and (3) severing its tenth cause of action for attorneys' fees and costs from the remaining causes of action. Defendants cross-1nove, under motion sequence number two, for an order: (1) granti11g them leave to amend their verified answer upon the ground that such amendment will allow them to resolve this action on the merits, (2) dismissing plaintiffs causes of action for conversion (i.e., its fourth and eighth causes of action), as \Veil as its request for punitive damages on this private breach of contact case, for failure to state a cause of action, and (3) denying plaintiffs pre-discovery motion for partial summary judgment. BACKGROUND (I) Plaintiff is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. SII-I is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, and MTR is a stock transfer company with offices located in New York. On September 20, 2013, 2 [* 3] SIH, as the company, and plaintiff, as the buyer, entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which plaintiff purchased fro1n SIH an 8°/o secured convertible promissory note, in the aggregate principal amount of $36,500 (Note l), which was convertible into shares of SIH's common stock with a par value of $0.001 per share. Note l provided that SIH, as the borrower, promised to pay to the order of plaintiff the sum of $36,500, together with interest on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of 8% per annum from the issue date of September 20, 2013 until the maturity date ofJune 20, 2014 (a period of nine months). On September 25, 2013, plaintiffpaid the $36,500 purchase price for Note l in full. Pursuant to section 1.1 of Note 1, plaintiff had the right to convert all or any part of the outstanding and unpaid principal a1nount of Note 1, into fully paid and non-assessable shares of co1n1non stocl( of SIH at the "Co11version Price" set forth in Note 1, beginning on a date 180 days after the issue date ofNote 1 (i.e., September 20, 2013) up until the maturity date of Note l or to tl1e date of payment of a Default Amount upon an Event of Default by borrower SIH .. Section 1.1 of Note I provided that the number of shares of common stock to be issued on conversion was to be determined by dividing the "Conversion Amount" by the "Conversion Price," as these tenns were defined in Note 1, on the date specified in the notice of conversion (the Notice of Conversion), which was to be delivered to SIH by plaintiff in accordance with section 1.4, provided that the Notice of Conversion was "sub1nitted by facsimile ... or by other 1nea11s resulting in, or reasonably expected to result 3 [* 4] in, notice to [SIH] before 6:00 P.M., New York ... time on such conversion date" (the Conversion Date). Section 1.4 (a) of Note 1 specified that it could be converted into the co1nmon stock of Slf-1 by plaintiffs submission to SIH of a Notice of Conversion "by facsimile or other reasonable means of co1nmu11ication dispatched on the Conversion Date prior to 6 P.M., New York ... time," and then physically surrendering Note 1 upon conversion of the entire llnpaid principal. Section 1.1 in Note 1 provides a fonnula to determine the "Conversion Amount," which at the option of SIH, might include unpaid interest. "Conversion Price" was to be co1nputed under Note I based upon the "Market Price" for the co1n1non stock at the ti1ne of conversion, defined in Note 1 as the average of the lov.1est three closing bid prices on the applicable trading exchange for the common stock during the l 0-day period ending one trading day before the date of the Conversion Notice. Section 1.4 ( e) of Note l provided, in pertinent part, as follows: "If the 1-Iolder shall have given a Notice of Conversion as provided herein, [SIH's] obligation to issue and deliver the certificates for Common Stock shall be absolute and unconditional, irrespective of the absence of any action by the 1-Iolder to enforce the saine, any waiver or consent with respect to any provision thereof, the recovery of any judgment against any person or any action to enforce the same, any failure or delay in the enforcement of any other obligation of [SIH] to the holder of record, or any setoff, counterclaim, recoup1nent, limitation or tennination, or any breach or alleged breach by the Holder of any obligation to [SIH]. .. " 4 [* 5] An agreement between MTR, as the transfer agent for SIH, and Sil-I, dated September 20, 2013 (the First MTR Agreement), executed by SI!-I by David C. Langle (Langle), its chief financial officer, and acknowledged and signed for MTR by John Ahearn (Ahearn), a partner and president of MTR, set forth that Sil-I, as the Company, and plaintiff, as the investor, had entered into the Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of September 20, 2013, which had provided for the issuance ofNote 1 in the principal amount of$36,500. Attached to the First MTR Agreement was a copy of Note 1, and the First MTR Agreement directed MTR to familiarize itself with its issuance and delivery obligations as Sii-I's transfer agent. The First MTR Agreement noted that "[t]he ability to convert the Note in a timely manner is a material obligation of[SIH] pursuant to the Note," and expressly provided that plaintiffwas intended to be a third-party beneficiary of that agreement. It further provided: "[MTR] is hereby irrevocably authorized and instructed to issue shares of the Common Stock (without any restrictive legend) to [plaintiff] without any further action or confirmation by [SIH]: (A) upon [MTR's] receipt from [plaintiff] of: (i) a . . . Conversion Notice executed by [plaintiff]; and (ii) an opinion of counsel of [plaintiff], in form, substance and scope customary for opinions of counsel in co1nparable transactions (and satisfactory to [MTR]), to the effect that the shares of Common Stock of [SIH] issued to [plaintiff] pursuant to the Conversion Notice are not 'restricted securities' as defined in Rule 144 and should be issued to [plaintiff] without any restrictive legend; and (B) the nu1nber of shares of com1uon stock to be issued is less than 9.99% of the total issued stock of [SIH]." (emphasis in original) 5 [* 6] (2) On January 22, 2014, plaintiff, as the buyer, and CLSS Holdings, LLC (CLSS), as the seller, entered into a Debt Purchase Agreement pursuant to which plaintiff purchased from CLSS all rights with respect to $42,000 in principal under a convertible promissory note in the amount of$367,000 issued by SIH on March 10, 2011 (the Transferred Rights). SIH executed the Debt Purchase Agreement, accepting and agreeing to the assignment of the Transferred Rights to plaintiff and that plaintiff may convert the Transferred Rights into shares of SIH's stock. Also on January 22, 2014, SIH issued to plaintiff a Convertible Redeemable Note in the aggregate principal face amount of$42,000 (Note 2) as a "Replacement Note Originally Issued March 10, 2011 in the Amount of $367,000." Note 2 had a maturity date of October 22, 2014 and SIH was obligated to pay interest on the principal amount at the rate of 10% per annum, cominencing on January 22, 2014. Note 2, like Note 1, contained terms with respect to the conversion to common stock ofSIH. Pursuant to section 4 (a) of Note 2, plaintiff was "entitled, at its option, at any time, to convert all or any amount of the principal face a1nount oftl1is Note then outstanding into [SII-l's] cormnon stock ... without restrictive legend of any nature, at a price ... for each share of Common Stock equal to 50% of the lowest closing bid price of the Conunon Stock as reported on the National Quotations Bureau OTCQB exchange which [SIH]'s shares are traded or any exchange under which the Common Stock 1nay be traded in the future ... for 6 [* 7] the ten prior trading days including the day upon which a Notice of Conversion is received by [SIH] (provided such Notice of Conversion is delivered by fax or other electronic method of communication to [SIH] after 4 P.M. Eastern Standard or Daylight Savings Time if the [plaintiff] wishe[d] to include[] the same day closing price)" (emphasis in original). Conversion was to be effectuated by Sil-! delivering the shares of Common Stock to plaintiff within 3 business days of receipt by Sil-! of the Notice of Conversion, following which, the Note was to be surrendered. Section 8 (k) ofNote 2 listed as an act of default, Sil-l's failure to deliver to plaintiff the com1non stock pursuant to section 4 without restrictive legend \Vithin three business days of its receipt of a Notice of Conversion. Section 12 of Note 2 required SIH to issue irrevocable transfer agent instructions reserving 315,000 shares ofcom1non stock for conversion under the Note. An agreement between MTR and SIH, dated January 22, 2014 (the Second MTR Agreement), "irrevocably" instructed MTR to reserve 315,000 shares of common stock for issuance upon full conversion of Note 2. The Second M'fR Agree1nent provided: "Upon receipt of a properly executed Conversion Notice and an opinion of counsel to the Investor [plaintiff], the Transfer Agent [MTR] shall within three (3) Trading davs issue and surrender to a corrunon carrier for overnight delivery to the address specified i11 the Conversion Notice, a certificate registered in the name of [plaintiff] for the number of shares of c01mnon stock to which [plaintiff] is entitled as set forth in the Conversion Notice without the need for any action or confinnation by [SIH] with respect to the issuance of Cotnmon Stock pursuant to any Conversion Notices received from fplaintiff]." (emphasis in the original) 7 [* 8] The Second MTR Agreement recites the approval by SIH's Board of Directors of the "irrevocable instructions". The Second MTR Agreement specified that the Notice of Conversion was to be executed by plaintiff and the opinion of counsel of plaintiff was to indicate that the issuance of the co1nmon shares upon conversio11 of Note 2 was exempt fro1n registration u11der the Federal Securities Act of 1933 and thatthe shares of conunon stock of SIH issued to plaintiff pursuant to the Notice of Conversion were not restricted securities as defined by Rule 144 u11der the Securities Act and should be issued to plaintiff without any restrictive legend, or, if not, that the opinion of counsel should direct MTR to affix a restrictive legend. The Second MTR Agreement expressly stated that plaintiff was "intended to be and is a third party beneficiary hereof." The Second MTR Agreement, was signed on behalf of SIH, by David C. Langle, as its chief financial officer, and signed, acknowledged, and agreed to by MTR, by John Ahearn, as MTR' s partner. (3) Plaintiff asserts that on May 14, 2014, in connection with Note 1, it sent a Notice of Conversion by e-mail to S!H, pursuant to which SU-I was obligated to convert the $36,500 principal amount and $1,946.67 in accrued interest, at a Conversion Price of$0.35755, into 107,526 shares of SIH common stock, the requisite opinion of counsel, dated May 15, 2014, to the effect that the shares of common stock of SIH to be issued to it pursuant to the Notice 8 [* 9] of Conversion were not restricted securities as defined by Rule 144 and should be issued without a restrictive legend. It is undisputed that defendants i1ever issued any SIH shares of com1non stock to plaintiff in connection with its atte1npt to exercise its conversion rights under Note 1. Consequently, on September 12, 2014, plaintiff filed this action against defendants, alleging claims of breach of contract, specific perfor1nance, conversion, and recovery of attorneys' fees, as provided in Section 4.5 ofNote 1, arising from defendants' failure to honor the tenns of Note 1 and the Securities Purchase Agreement. In addition, plaintiff asserts that on October 15, 2014, in connection with Note 2, it submitted to SIH, by e-mail, a Notice of Conversion, pursuant to which Sii-I was obligated to convert $32,345 in principal and $2,348.34 in accrued interest, at a conversion price of $.0075, into 4,625,778 shares of SHI stock, leaving a principal balance on the Note of $9,655. It further asserts that, also on October 15, 2015, it submitted to MTR the Notice of Conversion with respect to Note 2 and the requisite opinion of counsel. It is undisputed that defendants never issued any SIH shares of co1nmon stock to plaintiff with respect to its attetnpt to exercise its conversion rights under Note 2. On November 3, 2014, defendants filed their answer to plaintiffs complaint with respect to Note 1, which contained affirmative defenses of failure to state a cause of action, laches, statute of frauds and/or waiver, unenforceability because the contract was an adhesion contract or an illusory contract, usury, imper1nissibility of punitive damages, unclean hands, 9 [* 10] and improperly named parties. On November 17, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added clai1ns arising fro1n defendants' failure to honor the tenns of Note 2. Plaintifrs a1nended complaint alleges l 0 causes of action, which include a first cause of action for specific perfor1nance of the Securities Purchase Agreement and Note 1, a seco11d cause of action for breach of contract against SIH with respect to Note I, a third cattse of action for breach of contract against MTR with respect to the First MTR Agreement, a fourth cause of action for conversion against Slf-I with respect to Note 1, a fifth cause of actio11 for specific perfonnance of Note 2, a sixth cause of action for breach of contract against SIH with respect to its conversion rights under Note 2, a seventh cause of action for breach of contract against MTR under the Second MTR Agreement, an eighth cause of action for conversion against SIH with respect to Note 2, a ninth cause of action for breach of contract against SIH with respect to the balance owed under Note 2, and a tenth cause of action for the recovery of attorneys' fees incurred by it with respect to the costs of collection in connection with Note I and Note 2. On Dece1nber 10, 2014, defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. Defendants' answer contains no affirmative defenses. On May 6, 2015, plaintiff filed its instant motion for partial summary judgment with respect to its second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth causes of action. Asserting that they inadvertently failed to interpose affirmative defenses in their answer to plaintiffs amended complaint, on May 27, 2015, defendants filed their cross motion, seeking to amend their answer, annexing a proposed amended answer, which adds the affir1native 10 [* 11] defenses that the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, that the amended co1nplaint fails to state a clai1n for conversion, that the runended co1nplaint fails to state a claim for punitive damages, that plaintiff's calculation of interest is usurious or based on a rate that is greater than allowed by law and constitutes criminal usury, and that the liquidated damages sought are unreasonable, grossly disproportionate to the actual damages, and constitute unenforceable penalties used to compel performance. Defendants, in their cross 1notion, further seek the dismissal of plaintiff's fourth and eighth causes of action for conversion and plaintiff's request for punitive da1nages, and the denial of plaintiff's motion. DISCUSSION The court first addresses defendants' cross 1notion insofar as it seeks dismissal of plaintiffs fourth and eighth causes of action for conversion and its claims for punitive damages. Plaintiffs fourth cause of action for conversion alleges that as a result of its exercise of its conversion rights under Note 1, it became tl1e rightful owner of l 07 ,526 shares of SIH common stock. Plai11tiffs eighth cause of action for conversion alleges that as a result of its exercise of its conversion rights under Note 2, it beca1ne the rightful owner of 4,625,778 shares ofSIH common stock. Plaintiff, in both of these causes of action, alleges that it demanded that SIH issue these shares to it, but SIH refused to do so and had no legiti1nate justification for tl1is refusal. Plaintiff contends that by refusing to issue these shares, SIH converted the111, and that such conversion has not ended to date. It clai1ns that 11 [* 12] it lost the use of these shares during the period of conversion, causing it to sustain damages in excess of$80,000 with respect to Note 1 and damages in excess of$650,000 with respect to Note 2. It further claims that SIH acted with the intention of depriving it of its property or legal rights, and its actions were \Vanton, fraudulent, and shocking to the conscience, and perpetrated in complete disregard ofits rights. In addition to compensatory damages, plaintiff seeks punitive damages in the sum of at least $250,000 with respect to each Note 1 and Note 2. "'In order to establish a cause of action to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiffmust show legal ownership or an i1n1nediate superior right ofpossession to a specific identifiable thing and must show that the defendant exercised an unauthorized do1ninion over the thing in question ... to the exclusion of the plaintiffs rights"' (Mackey Reed E!ec., Inc. v Morrone & Assoc., P. C., 125 AD3d 822, 824 [2d Dept 2015], quoting Matter of Channel Mar. Sales, Inc. v City ofNew York, 75 AD3d 600, 601 [2d Dept 2010]). Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff never had ownership, possession or control of SII-I's co1nrnon stock prior to its alleged conversion, as required for a conversion claim (see Peters Griffin Woodward, Inc. v WCSC, Inc., 88 AD2d 883, 884 [1st Dept 1982]). Rather, plaintiff merely had the right, under Note 1 and Note 2, to be repaid in money or in stock. '"The 1nere right to payment cannot be the basis for a catise of action alleging conversion'" (Zendler Constr. Co., Inc. v First Adj. Group, Inc., 59 AD3d 439, 440 [2d Dept 2009], 12 [* 13] quoting Selinger Enters., Inc. v Cassuto, 50 AD3d 766, 768 (2d Dept 2008]; see also Whitman Realty Group, Inc. v Galano, 41 AD3d 590, 592 [2d Dept 2007]). Moreover, "'a clairn to recover darnages for conversion cannot be predicated on a mere breach of contract"' (Wolfv National Council of Young Israel, 264 AD2d 416, 417 [2d Dept 1999], quoting Priolo Communications v MCI Telecom. Corp., 248 AD2d 453, 454 [2d Dept 1998]; see also Weinstein v Natalie Weinstein Design Assoc., Inc., 86 AD3d 641, 642 [2d Dept 2011]; MEL Life Assur. Corp. v 555 Realty Co., 240 AD2d 375, 376 [2d Dept 1997]; Peters Griffin Woodward, Inc., 88 AD2d at 884). Plaintiff is alleging that defendants failed to repay two loans in shares of stock in breach of their contractual obligations. Thus, plaintiffs fourth and eighth causes of action for conversion are duplicative of plaintiffs second and sixth causes of action alleging breach of contract on the same grounds (see AJW Partners LLC v ltronics Inc., 68 AD3d 567, 568-569 [1st Dept 2009]). Since plaintiffs conversion claims do not allege a separate taking or stem from a wrong which is independent of its alleged breach of contract claims, plaintiffs fourth and eighth causes of actio111nust be dismissed and plaintiff's 1notion, insofar as it seeks partial su1nmary judg1nent in its favor on its fourth and eighth causes of action, must be denied (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Inasmuch as these conversion claims must be dis1nissed and there is no alternative basis to find that defendants' conduct constitutes a tort, plaintiffs clai1n for punitive da1nages 1nust likewise be dis1nissed. "Punitive damages are not recoverable for an ordinary breach of contract as their purpose is not to remedy private wrongs but to vindicate public rights" 13 [* 14] (Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. a/US., 83 NY2d 603, 613 [1994]). Only "where [the] breach of contract also involves a fraud evincing a 'high degree of moral turpitude' and demonstrating 'such wanton dishonesty as to i1nply a criminal indifference to civil obligations,' [are] punitive damages recoverable if the conduct was 'aimed at the public generally"' (Rocanova, 83 NY2d at 613, quoting Walker v Sheldon, IO NY2d 401, 405 [1961]; see also New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 315-316 [1995]; Alexanderv. GEICO Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 989, 990 [3dDept2006]; Varveris v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 537, 538 [2d Dept 2005]; Logan v Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 275 AD2d 187, 194 [2d Dept 2000], Iv dismissed 96 NY2d 823 [200 I]). "Thus, a private party seeking to recover punitive damages must not only demonstrate egregious tortious conduct by which [it] was aggrieved, but also that such conduct was part of a pattern of similar conduct directed at the public generally" (Rocanova, 83 NY2d at 613). Plaintiff does not allege any egregious tortious conduct or any pattern of conduct directed at the public generally. Rather, this action involves solely a contract dispute between private parties. Thus, plaintiffs clai1n for punitive damages is insufficient as a matter oflaw, and no punitive damages may be awarded (see Rocanova, 83 NY2d at 613). Si11ce the court has dismissed plaintiffs conversion claims and its claims for punitive damages, defendants' cross motion, insofar as it seek to a1nend their answer to assert the affinnative defenses that plaintiffs amended complaint fails to state a claim for conversion and fails to state a claim for punitive damages, is rendered moot. 14 [* 15] With respect to plaintiffs motion for partial summary judg1nent on its breach of contract claitns, on a 1notion for summary judgment, the movant must 1uake a prima facie showing, by tendering evidentiary proof in admissible fonn, of its entitlement to judg1nent as a matter oflaw (see Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Once the movant has made tl1is pri1na facie showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine inaterial triable issue of fact by producing evidentiary proof in admissible fonn (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckern1an, 49 NY2d at 562). "[M]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient" to sustain this burden (Zucker1nan, 49 NY2d at 562). Here, plaintiff has submitted the afftnnation ofits managing member, Joseph Lerman, attesting to the facts as alleged by it in its amended complaint, along with copies of Note 1, Note 2, the Securities Purchase Agreement, the First MTR Agreement, and the Second MTR Agree1nent. It also has submitted copies of the Notices of Conversion and opinion of counsel letters, which, it asserts, defendants received. It is undisputed that no shares of SII-1 common stock were issued to plaintiff, nor were the loans othenvise repaid. In addition, pursuant to the express tenns of the First MTR Agreement and the Second MTR Agreement, plaintiff was named as a third-party beneficiary. Thus, plaintiff has established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, shifting the burden to defendants to raise a genuine issue of fact. 15 [* 16] In opposition to plaintiffs motion, defendants assert that it is nndisputed that plaintiff failed to sign and deliver the Securities Purchase Agree1nent, and that, pursuant to section 6 (a) of the Securities Purchase Agreement, tl1is \.vas a condition precedent to transferring the shares of co1n1non stock under Note 1. Section 6 of the Securities Purchase Agreement, entitled "Conditions to the Company's Obligation to Sell," insofar as relevant to defendants' argument, provided: "The obligation of[SIH] hereunder to issue and sell the Note to [plaintiff! at the Closing is subject to the satisfaction, at or before the Closing Date of each of the following conditions thereto, provided that these conditions are for [SIH's] sole benefit and may be waived by [SIH] at any time in its sole discretion: a. [Plaintiff] shall have executed this Agreement and delivered the same to [SIH]. b. [Plaintiff] shall have delivered the Purchase Price in accordance with Section l (b) above. c. The representations and warranties of [plaintiff] shall be true and correct in all 1naterial respects as of the date when made and as of the Closing Date as though made at that time ... and [plaintiff] shall have performed, satisfied and complied in all material respects with . .. conditions required by this Agreement ... at or prior to the Closing Date (emphasis added). It is well established that "[a] condition precedent is an 'act or event, other than a lapse of time, which, unless the condition is excused, must occur before a duty to perfor1n a promise in the agreement arises' 11 (Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d685, 690 [1995], citing Calamari and Perillo, Contracts§ 11-2, at438 [3d ed]; see alsoAshkenaziv Kent S. Assoc., LLC, 51AD3d611, 611 [2d Dept 2008]; Klewin Bldg. Co., Inc. v Heritage Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 42 AD3d 559, 560 [2d Dept 2007]; Preferred 16 [* 17] Mtge. Brokers v Byfield, 282 AD2d 589, 590 [2d Dept2001 ]). "[!]tis for the court to decide, as a 1natter of la\V, \Vhether an express condition precedent to performance exists under the tenns of a contract" (Rooney v Slomowitz, 11 AD3d 864, 865 [3d Dept 2004]; see also Two Guys from Harrison-N. Y v S.F.R. Realty Assoc., 63 NY2d 396, 403 [1984]). 11 As a general rt1le, it tnust clearly appear from the agreement itself that the parties intended a provision to operate as a condition precedent" (Kass v Kass, 235 AD2d 150, 159 [2d Dept 1997], affd91NY2d554 [1998]). "If the language is in any way ambiguous, the law does not favor a construction which creates a condition precedent" (Ashkenazi, 51 AD3d at611; see also Kass, 235 AD2d at 159; Manningv Michaels, 149 AD2d 897, 898 [3d Dept 1989]). "A contractual duty will not be construed as a condition precedent absent clear language sl1owing that the parties intended to make it a condition 11 (Ashkenazi, 51 AD3d at 611-612; see also Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v North Riv. Ins. Co., 79 NY2d 576, 581 [1992]; Roan/Meyers Assoc., L.P. v CT Holdings, Inc., 26 AD3d 295, 296 [!st Dept 2006]; Rooney, 11 AD3d at 865). Here, by its express terms, section 6 (a) of the Securities Purchase Agreement required execution and delivery by plaintiff of the Securities Purchase Agreement as a condition only to SIH's sale of Note I to plaintiff at the closing. Section I (a), entitled "Purchase of Note," provided that "[o]n the Closing Date (as defined below), [SIF] shall issue and sell to [plaintiff] and [plaintiff] agrees to purchase from [SIF the] principal amount of Note," which is set forth therein as $36,500. 17 [* 18] Section 1 (c), entitled "Closing Date," provided: "Subject to the satisfaction (or written waiver) of the conditions thereto set forth in Section 6 and Section 7 below, the date and time of the issuance and sale of the Note pursuant to this Agreement (the 'Closing Date') shall be 12:00 noon, Eastern Standard Time on September 23, 2013, or such other mutually agreed upon time. The closing of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the 'Closing') shall occur on the Closing Date at such location as may be agreed to by the parties." It is undisputed that the closing took place on September 20, 2013 and SIH received the $36,500 in funds. As set forth above, section 6 of the Securities Purchase Agreement specifically provided that SIH could waive the listed conditions at any time. While defendants point to section 8 (e) of the Securities Purchase Agreement, this section provided that "[ n]o provision of this Agreement may be waived or amended other than by an instru1nent in writing signed by the inajority in interest of the Buyer [i.e., plaintiff]," and, thus, did not pertain to a waiver by SIH. "When interpreting a contract, the construction arrived at should give fair 1neaning to all of the language employed by the parties, to reach a practical interpretation of the parties' expressions so that their reasonable expectations will be realized 11 (Fernandez v Price, 63 AD3d 672, 675 [2d Dept2009]; see also W: W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]; McCabe v Witteveen, 34 AD3d 652, 654 [2d Dept 2006]). "'A court may not write into a contract co11ditions the parties did not insert by adding or excising tenns under the guise of construction, nor inay it construe the language in such a way as would distort the contract's apparent meaning"' (Matter of Bokor v Markel, 104 AD3d 683, 683 [2d Dept 18 [* 19] 2013], quoting Matter o[Tillim v Fuks, 221AD2d642, 643 [2d Dept 1995]). The court, u11der the guise of construction, cannot read an express condition into an agree1nent (see Camaiore v Farance, 50 AD3d 471, 471-472 [1st Dept 2008]). Thus, the court cannot find that the condition set forth in section 6 (a) of the Securities Purchase Agreement, which was a condition to be satisfied at or before the closing date, was a condition that pertained to SIH's subsequent obligation to convert the debt into stock. Rather, the plain language of this provision unambiguously states that it is a condition to the closing, which took place. Therefore, this condition was waived by Sil-I's closing on the sale of Note 1 and its acceptance of the $36,500. Defendants additionally argue plaintiff failed to submit a Securities Purchase Agreen1ent for Note 2. However, there was no securities purchase agree1nent for Note 2, but only a Debt Purchase Agreement, which indicated that Note 2 was a replacement note in favor of plaintiff, replacing a convertible note given by SIH to CLSS. Contrary to defendants' argument, plaintiff was not required to attach an original assignment of Note 2 because it was not assigned from anyone, but, rather, was an original replace1nent note. While defendants also assert that SIH failed to sign Note 2, only the borrower is required to execute a note, not the lender (see generally Prince v Schacher, 125 AD3d 626, 627 [2d Dept 2015]). Defendants further deny that plaintiff se11t the Notices of Conversion in compliance with the two loans, and contend that plaintiff failed to submit proof of the delivery. 19 [* 20] Defendants have submitted the affidavitofKeithHoulihan (Houlihan), Sil-l's chief executive officer. Houlihan asserts that while plaintiff alleges that it sent Notices of Conversion and opinions of counsel in 2014 on May 14 and 15, June 24, July 8, and October 15, he did not receive these notices or opinions of counsel, and he is not aware of anyone at Sii-I who received these documents in proper form. He states that the opinions of counsel were not in proper form because plaintiff's counsel stated that he relied upon plaintiff's representations to prepare such opinions, and since plaintiff did not sign the Securities Purchase Agree1nent, no representations were made to be relied upon. Defendants have also submitted the affidavit of Ahearn, who, as noted above, is a partner of MTR. Ahearn states that while plaintiff alleges that it sent Notices of Conversion and opinions of counsel on May 14, 2014, June 24, 2014, July 8, 2014, and October 15, 2014, neither he nor anyone fro1n MTR received all of these Notices ofC011version or opinions of counsel. He co1nplains that Lerman, in his affirmation, did not state the i1ame of the person who sent these documents or provide proof of delivery. He further points to the fact that there was no Notice of Conversion dated July 8, 2014 attached to plaintiffs iuotion. In response, plaintiff has submitted the notarized affidavit of Tomer Tai (Tai), an attorney adinitted to the California State bar, who attests that he was counsel for plai11tiff in connection with Note I and Note 2 and in connection with plaintiffs exercise of its conversion rights. Tal states that he issued the required opinions of counsel and specifically attests that, on May 14, 2014, he sent, by e-mail to Ahearn, the president of MTR, with a 20 [* 21] copy to Craig Seizer (Seizer) of SIH, several documents, including Note 1, the Notice of Conversion thereunder, and his opinion letter. This e-mail, dated May 14, 2014 at 4:31 P.M., specified these docu1nents as being attached to that e-mail. Tal further attests that on October 15, 2014, he sent by e-mail to Ahearn, with a copy to Langle, the chief financial officer of SIH, several docu1ne11ts, including Note 2, the Notice of Conversion thereunder, a11d his opinion letter. This e-mail, dated October 14, 2014 at 3 :00 P.M., specified these documents as being attached to that e-1nail. Defendants, in response, argue that there is no business records affidavit supporting the two e-mails sent by Tal, and his out-of-state affidavit does not comply with New York law, referencing CPLR 2309. However, Tal's affidavit is duly acknowledged by a notary public licensed in California. Thus, it is admissible (see Midfirst Bank v Agho, 121 AD3d 343, 351 [2d Dept 2014]). Furthermore, '~he absence of a certificate of confonnity is not, in and of itself, a fatal defect (id.; see also Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. v Everfoam Insulation Sys., Inc., 110 AD3d 680, 682 [2d Dept 2013]; Bey v Newnan, 100 AD3d 581, 582 [2d Dept 2012]; Fredette v Town of Southampton, 95 AD3d 940, 942 [2d Dept 2012], Iv denied 19 NY3d 811 (2012]). Even if a certificate of conformity is inadequate or missing, such a defect 1nay be disregarded where no substantial right of the defenda11ts is prejudiced (id.,· see also Matos v Salem Truck Leasing, 105 AD3d 916, 917 [2d Dept 2013]; Rivers v Birnbaum, 102 AD3d 26, 44 [2d Dept 2012]). 21 [* 22] In reply, defendants do not submit any affidavits from Seizer or Langle denying receipt of these e-mails, and no further affidavit is submitted by Ahearn denying the receipt of these e-mails. Notably, Aheam's affidavit is carefully crafted so as to deny that he received all (i.e., every one) of the alleged four Notices of Conversion, but does not deny that he received the two Notices of Conversion upon which plaintiff bases its clai1ns. In this regard, the court notes that the June 24, 2014 Notice of Conversion was sent after plaintiff had already served the May 15, 2014 Notice of Conversion, and, as such, would have been ineffective as plaintiffhad already exercised its conversion rights. Si1uilarly, any atte1npt to convert $10,000 of the principal amount of Note l plus interest on July 8, 2014 (for which no Notice of Conversion has been submitted) would have similarly been a nullity. Defendants further argue that the opinions of counsel are deficient because they relied upon the representations of plai11tiff. This argument is specious as the opinion letters recite that plaintiff represe11ted that the shares were to be issued upon conversion of indebtedness owed to plaintiff for debt that arose for good and valid consideration as reflected in the Notes. Defendants do 11ot explain how the opinion letters, wl1ich were for the purpose of supporting the removal of the restricted securities legend, were not in the form, substance, and scope customary for opinions of counsel in comparable transactions or how it did not co1nply \Vith section 1.5 of Note 1 or of any require1nent in Note 2. No expert opinion has been offered that would support defendants' clai111s of such deficiency. Thus, as to plaintiff's breach of contract clai1ns, the court does not find that defendants have raised any genuine 22 [* 23] issues of fact \Vith respect to the receipt of the Notice of Conversion and the opinions of counsel or the adequacy of the opinions of cou11sel. Defendants additionally contend that tl1ere is a11 issue of fact as to plaintiffs intent to charge a criminally usurious interest rate. Penal Law§ 190.40 provides that "[a] person is guilty of criminal usury in the second degree wl1en, not being authorized or permitted by law to do so, he [or she] knowi11gly charges, takes or receives any money or other property as interest on the loan or forbearance of any 1noney or other property, at a rate exceeding twenty-five per centum per annu1n or the equivalent rate for a longer or shorter period." It further provides that "[c]riminal us11ry in the second degree is a class E felony." Criminally usurious contracts are u11enforceable (see General Obligations Law § 5521 [3], § 5-511; Penal Law§ 190.40; Lloyd Capital Corp. v Pat Henchar, Inc., 80 NY2d 124, 127 [1992]; Seidelv 18 E. 17th St. Owners, 79NY2d 735, 741n2 [1992]). "A usurious contract is void and relieves the plaintiff of the obligation to repay principal and interest thereon" (Abir v Malley, Inc., 59 AD3d 646, 649 [2d Dept 2009]; see also General Obligations Law§ 5-511; Seidel, 79 NY2d at 740; Venables v Sagona, 85 AD3d 904, 905 [2d Dept 2011]; Stanley Weisz, P.C. Retirement Plan v NCHD Assoc., 237 AD2d 276, 277 [2dDept 1997]; Fareriv Rain's Intl., 187 AD2d48l, 482 [2dDept 1992]). However, "[t]here is a strong presumption against the fi11ding of usurious intent" (Lehman v Roseanne lnvs. Corp., 106 AD2d 617, 618 [2d Dept 1984]; see also Zhavoronkin v Koutmine, 52 AD3d 597, 598 [2d Dept 2008]; Richardson v Brisard & Brisard, Inc., 36 Misc 3d 121 l [A], 2012 NY 23 [* 24] Slip Op 51250[U], *4 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2012]). "[A] loan is not usurious merely because there is a possibility that the lender will receive more than the legal rate of interest" (Lehman, 106 AD2d at 618 [2d Dept 1984]). "Where a usurious rate is not found on the face of the note, the defendant has the burden of proving that [the] plaintiff intended for the transaction to be usurious at the inception" (Realty Holdings ofAmerica, LLC v Stein, 2013 NY Slip Op. 32945[U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2013]). Note 1 and Note 2 are not criminally usurious on their faces. Note l provided for 8o/o interest per annum, and Note 2 provided for 10% interest per annu1n. The inere fact that plaintiffs return would increase upon its conversion to shares of stock does not demonstrate a usurious intent (see AJWI Partners, LLC v Cyberlux Corp., 21 Misc 3d l 109[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52020[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]). Moreover, defendants' proposed affirmative defense of usury, which it seeks to add by amendment, does not allege usurious intent. It is further noted that "[u]sury laws apply only to loans or forbearances, not investments" (Seidel, 79 NY2d at 744). Although the initial transactions were loans, which were clearly not usurious, as plaintiff notes, the Securities Purchase Agreement provided that, upon conversion, SIH \Vas selling securities under Note 1 to it as an "investor." The conversion to stock: would convert plaintiff from a lender to an investor with the right to share in the profits and losses of SIH. Notably, the First MTR Agreement with respect to Note 1 and the Second MTR Agreement with respect to Note 2 refer to plaintiff as an 24 [* 25] "investor". While a loan may not be disguised as an invest1nent as a cover for usury (see e.g. Bouffard v Befese, LLC, 111 AD3d 866, 869 [2d Dept 2013]),the Notes refer to SIH as the borrower, and only upon conversion at plaintiffs election would SIH's debt to plaintiff become an investment, upon which plaintiff took the risk that the stock could be completely worthless. Where the transaction provides for the purchase of shares of stock and the price of stock fluctuates so that it is unclear if the interest rate would exceed the legal rate of interest, no usury exists (see Phlo Corp. v Stevens, 200 I WL 1313387 [SD NY 200 I], ajfd 62 Fed Appx 377 [2d Cir 2003]). To the extent that defendants base their proposed defense of usury on the liquidated damages clause, "'the defense of usury does not apply where ... the terms of ... [a] note hnpose a rate of interest in excess of the statutory inaxi1nu1n only after default or inaturity'') (Kraus v Mendelsohn, 97 AD3d 641, 641 [2d Dept 2013], quoting Miller Planning Corp. v Wells, 253 AD2d 859, 860 [2d Dept 1998]). Thus, since defendants cannot demonstrate a usurious intent at the time of inception, tl1ey have failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to criminal usury. Where a proposed affirmative defense is palpably insufficient or patently lacking in merit, leave to amend the answer to assert it must be denied (see Krigsman v Cyngiel, 130 AD3d 786, 787 [2d Dept 2015]). Thus, since defendants' proposed affirmative defense of usury is devoid of merit, defendants' cross motion, insofar as it seeks to amend their answer to add this defense must be denied. 25 [* 26] Inasmuch as SII-I has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to its failure to abide by the terms of Note 1 and Note 2, summary judgment on the issue ofliability with respect to plaintiffs second and sixth causes of action for breach of contract as against SII-I must be granted. In addition, since the express ter1ns of the First MTR Agreement and tl1e Second MTR Agreement provided that plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of those Agreements and no genuine issue of fact has been raised as to MTR's breach of those Agreements by its failure to issue the Sii-! shares to plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to its third and seventh causes of action for breach of contract as against MTR. With respect to the issue of damages, plaintiff seeks co1npensatory damages, as well as liquidated damages pursuant to liquidated damage clauses in Note 1 and Note 2. 1 Plaintiff asserts that if defendants had honored its Notice of Conversion, it would have received 107,526 shares ofSIH common stock by May 19, 2014 for Note 1 (the third day after the May 15, 2014 Notice of Conversion). It states that on that day, the weighted average price of SIH common stock (based on volume and trading price) was $0.853909 per share, supporting this claim for cotnpensatory da1uages with submission of Bloomberg stock quotations. This price is reduced to reflect a subsequent stock split by SIH in February 2015, when SIH issued one share of common stock in exchange for 125 shares. Plaintiff contends that, after recognizing this stock split, the \Veighted average price of the SIH shares on May 1 As discussed above, plaintiff's clain1 for punitive damages n1ust be dismissed. 26 [* 27] 19, 2014 was $0.68 (85.3909/125 ~ $0.68 per share). It claims that this equates to damages of $73,117.68 (107,526 x $0.68 per share). As to Note 2, plaintiff asserts that ifdefe11dants had honored its Notice of Conversion, it would have received 4,625,778 shares ofSIH common stock by October 17, 2014. It states that on that date, the weighted average price for SIH stock was $0.112 per share, as evidenced by the Bloomberg stocl( quotations and the subsequent SIH stock split in the ratio of 125 to l shares (14.0053/125 ~ $0.112). It claims that this equates to damages of $518,087.13 (4,625, 778 shares x $0.112 per share). Defendants, in opposition, point out that the Bloomberg price quotations relied upon by plaintiff in its calculations are i1ot in admissible for1n. Furthermore, it is unclear ho\V plaintiff arrived at these calculations of its da1nages or that plaintiff is entitled to the runounts requested. Thus, there must be an inquest as to the amount of actual damages sustained by plaintiff to which it is entitled (see Rockmore Inv. Master Fund Ltd. v. Power 3 Medical Products, Inc., 30 Misc 3d l206[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52309[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2010]). Plaintiff also seeks additional damages based upon liquidated damages clauses contained in section 1.4 (g) of Note land section 8 (I) of Note 2. Section 1.4 (g) of Note 1 provided that the parties had agreed that "if delivery of the Common Stock issuable upon conversion of this Note [were] more than three (3) business days after the Deadline ... [SIH was required to] pay to [plaintiff] $2,000 per day in cash, for each day beyond the Deadline 27 [* 28] that [Sii-I] fuil[ed] to deliver such Common Stock." Such cash amount was required to be paid to plaintiff by the fifth day of the month following the month in which it accrued, and added to the principal amount of Note I, in wl1ich event, interest was to accrue thereon in accordance with the ter1ns of Note l~ and such additional pri11cipal amount was to be convertible into common stock. This section further provided that SIH "agree[d] that the right to convert [wa]s a valuable right to [plaintiff]," and that "[t]he damages resulting from a failure, atte1npt to frustrate, [or] interference with such conversion right are difficult if not impossible to qualify [sic]," and that "[a]ccordingly the parties acknowledge that the liquidated provision contained in this Section 1.4 (g) are justified." In addition, section 4.7 of Note 1, captioned "Certain Atnounts", provided: "Whenever pursuant to this Note the [SII-I] is required to pay an runount in excess of the outstanding principal amount (or the portion thereof required to be paid at that titne) plus accrued and unpaid interest plus Default Interest on such interest, [SIH] and the Holder agree that the actual damages to the Holder from the receipt of cash payment on this Note may be difficult to determine and the amount to be so paid by [SIH] represents stipulated damages and not a penalty and is intended to compensate the Holder in part for loss of the opportunity to convert this Note and to earn a return from the sale of shares of Com1non Stock acquired upon version of this Note at a price in excess of the price paid for such shares pursuant to this Note. [SIH] and the Holder hereby agree that such amount of stipulated damages is not plainly disproportionate to the possible loss to the Holder from the receipt of a cash payment without the opportunity to convert this Note into shares of Common Stock." Section 8 (l) of Note 2 provided that in the event of a breach of section 8 (k) (which required that Sii-I deliver to plaintiff the co1nmon stock pursuant to section 4 without 28 [* 29] restrictive legend within three business days of its receipt of a Notice of Co11version), "the penalty shall be $250 per day [that] the shares are not issued beginning on the 4• day after the conversion notice was delivered to [SIH]," and that "[t]his penalty shall increase to $500 per day beginning on the IO'" day." Defendants contend that tl1ere is an issue of fact as to the reasonableness and enforceability of these liquidated damages clauses in Note I and Note 2. They assert that these clauses, by their plain language, were used to compel performance by having a penalty for non-performance. "As a general 1natter parties are free to agree to a liquidated damages clause 'provided that the clause is neither unconscionable 11or contrary to public policy'" (172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v Globe Alumni Student Assistance Assn., Inc., 24 NY3d 528, 536 [2014], quoting Truck Rent-A-Ctr. v Puritan Farms 2nd, 41 NY2d 420, 424 [ 1977]). "Liquidated da1nages that constitute a penalty, however, violate public policy, and are unenforceable" (172 VanDuzer Realty Corp., 24 NY3d al 536; see also Truck Rent-A-Ctr., 41 NY2d at424; City o[Rye v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 34 NY2d470, 472-473 [1974]). "A provision which requires damages 'grossly disproportionate to the a1nount of actual damages provides for [a] penalty and is unenforceable"' (I 72 Van Duzer Realty Corp., 24 NY3d at 536, quoting Truck Rent-A-Ctr., 41 NY2d at 424). "Whether a contractual provision represents an enforceable liquidated da1nages provision or a11 unenforceable penalty is a question of law" (United Tit. Agency, LLC v 29 [* 30] Surfside-3 Mar., Inc., 65 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Bates Adv. USA, Inc. v 498 Seventh, LLC, 7 NY3d 115, 120 [2006], rearg denied 7 NY3d 784 [2006]; Truck Rent-A-Ctr., 41 NY2d at 424). 'The burden is on the party seeking to avoid liquidated damages ... to show that the stated liquidated damages are, in fact, a penalty" (JMD Holding C01p. v Congress Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 380 [2005]). "The party challenging a liquidated damages clause must establish either that actual damages were readily ascertainable at the time the contract was entered into or that the liquidated damages were conspicuously disproportionate to foreseeable or probable losses" (United Tit. Agency, LLC, 65 AD3d at l 135; see also Bates Adv. USA, Inc., 7 NY3d at 120). '"If the (liquidated damages] clause is rejected as being a penalty, the recovery is limited to actual damages proven"' (JMD Holding Corp., 4 NY3d at 380, quoting Brecher v Laikin, 430 F Supp 103, 106 [SD NY 1977]). ''[W]here a liquidated damages provision is an unenforceable penalty, 'the rest of the agreement stands, and the injured party is remitted to the conventional da1nage re1nedy for breach of that agreement, just as if the provision had not been included"' (JMD Holding Corp., 4 NY3d at 380, quoting 3 Farnsworth, Contracts § 12.18, at 304 [3d ed]). While it is recited in section 4.7 of Note l that plaintiff and SIH "agree[d] that [the] amount of stipulated damages [wa]s not plainly disproportionate to the possible loss to [plaintiff] from the receipt of a cash payment without the opportunity to convert tl1is Note into shares ofC01nmon Stock," plaintiff has "by no means conclusively demonstrate[d] the 30 [* 31] absence of gross disproportionality" (BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 396-397 [1999];seealsoGenesee Vol. Trust Co. v Waterford Group, LLC, l30AD3d 1555, 1558 [4th Dept 2015)). Plaintiff demands, in addition to compensatory damages of $73,117.68 for failure to timely convert the $36,500 loan under Note l, liquidated or "stipulated" damages in excess of $682,000, for a total of $755,117.68. Plaintiff also seeks to recover for defendants' failure to convert $32,345, plus interest, on Note 2, $518,087.13 in compensatory damages, in addition to the liquidated sum of$91,000, for a total of$609,087.13. This claim would represent a double recovery for breach ofthe same contractual obligations in violation of public policy, in addition to such sums being grossly disproportionate to the actual potential loss. Although the parties inay have been unable to compute the amot1nt of actual anticipated da1nages which would result fro1n tl1e inability to convert the loan to stock, the liquidated damages of$682,000 under Note I and $91,000 under Note 2, are so far in excess of the principal loan amounts of$36,000 and$42,000 ofNote 1 and Note 2, respectively, and are so conspicuously and grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, that there can be no question that these liquidated damage clauses were clearly designed to penalize SIH (see Del Nero v Colvin, 11 J AD3d 1250, 1252 [4th Dept 2013), Iv denied 114 AD3d 1226 [2014); Ford v Cardiovascular Specialists, P.C., 103 AD3d 1222, 1223 [4th Dept 2013); Borek, Stockel & Co. v Slevira, 203 AD2d 314, 314 [2d Dept 1994)). It's noted that these damages are expressly characterized as a "penalty" in Note 2, section 8(1). These liquidated damages 31 [* 32] clauses are therefore unenforceable as a matter of law, and plaintiff is li1nited to recovery of the actual damages sustained, which shall be determined by the trier of fact. Plaintiff also seeks partial summary judgment as to liability upon its tenth cause of action for the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with recovery on Note I and Note 2. Section 4.5 ofNote I provided that if there were a default in the payment of Note 1, SIH would pay plaintiff the costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys' Section 8 (a) of the Securities Purchase Agreement similarly provided that the fees. prevailing party in any action conce1ning the transactions contemplated by that agree1nent nshall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorneys 1 fees and costs. 11 In section 7 of Note 2, SIH agreed "to pay all costs and expenses, including reasonable atto1neys' fees a11d expenses, which may be inct1rrcd by [plai11tiff] in collecting any amount due under this Note." Section 8 (I) of Nole 2 provided that if plaintiff commenced an action to enforce any provision of Note 2, SII-I would be entitled to reimbt1rse1ncnt of its attorneys' fees. Pursuant to these provisions, plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. The amount of such reasonable attorneys' fees and costs must be determined at a hearing (see CIT Group/Equip. Fin., Inc. v Riddle, 31 AD3d477, 478 [2d Dept 2006]; MBNA Am. Bankv Paradise, 285 AD2d 586, 586 [2d Dept 2001]). Thus, the amount of these attorneys' fees and costs will be simultaneously determined at the hearing to detennine plaintiffs da1nages. 32 [* 33] CONCLUSION Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for partial su1n1nary judg1nent in its favor is granted on the issue of liability with respect to its second, third, sixth, seventh, and tenth causes of action, and is otherwise denied. Defendants' cross motion is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiffs fourth and eighth catises of action for conversion and plaintiffs request for punitive damages. Defendants' cross motion, insofar as it seeks leave to a1nend their answer to add the affirmative defenses that plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a clai1n of conversion and fails to state a claim for punitive dainages, and that tl1e liquidated damages sought constitute unenforceable penalties, is rendered moot by the dis1nissal of plaintiffs conversion claims, plaintiffs clai1ns for punitive damages, and plaintiffs claims for liquidated da1nages and is denied. Defendants' cross motion, insofar as it seeks leave to amend their answer to assert the affirmative defenses of cri1ninal usury and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, is denied. A trial on damages shall be held to compute the a1nount of compensatory da1nages and attorneys' fees and costs due to plaintiff. The parties shall conduct discovery regarding such damages prior to trial. This constitutes the decision, order, and judgment oft11e court. ENTER, l1~ ;/ J. S. C. 33 . · ST HON. CAROLYNE.~.

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.