Medaglia v Cassata

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Medaglia v Cassata 2018 NY Slip Op 31895(U) June 28, 2018 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 45878/2010 Judge: Jerry Garguilo Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2018 11:24 AM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 95 INDEX NO. 045878/2010 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2018 E-FILE SHORT FORM ORDER INDEX NO. 45878/2010 SUPREME COURT - ST ATE OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL DIVISION IAS PART 48 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JERRY GARGUILO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ALDO MEDAGLIA, Plaintiff, -againstROSARIO S. CASSATA, RICHARD SCUDERI, DECISION AFTER TRIAL PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: RICHMAN & LEVINE, P.C. 666 OLD COUNTRY RD, STE 101 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: KAGAN LUBIC LEPPER LEWIS GOLD 200 MADISON A VE, 24TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 Defendants, POLO GROUNDS AT MEL VILLE, LLC, Nominal Defendant. The matter was tried before the Court without a jury, commencing April 10, 2018, and continuing April 11 , 2018, April 12, 2018 and April 13, 2018. As in any civil matter a party has the burden of proof on a particular issue in that considering all the evidence in the case, the parties claim on that issue must be established by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence. The credible evidence means the testimony or exhibits that the Court finds worthy of belief. A preponderance means the greater part of the evidence. The phrase preponderance of the evidence refers to the quality of the evidence, its weight, and the effect it has on the mind of the finder of fact, the Court. In order for a party to prevail on an issue on which the proponent has the burden of proof, the evidence that supports the claim on that issue must appeal as more nearly representing what happened then the evidence opposed to it. If it does not or if it weighs so evenly that the finder of fact is unable to say that there is a preponderance on either side, the finder of fact must decide the question against the party who has the burden of proof and in favor of the opposing party. 1 of 5 [*FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2018 11:24 AM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 95 INDEX NO. 045878/2010 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2018 MEDAGLIA v. CASSATA INDEX NO.: 4587812010 PAGE2 This Court finds that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and finds in favor of Defendant, Cassata. 1 The Court must find that Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment against Cassata simply because he failed to demonstrate a breach of any contractual obligation concerning the project known as Polo Grounds at Melville, LLC. In fact, the Court finds that the transactions between these parties appears no different than placing a bet on a trifecta wherein one of the pool of bettors claims it is a "sure thing," the bet is unsuccessful and a contributor to the pool seeks enforcement of the "sure thing" comment by demanding a return of his ante. The trail to this transaction began in 2002 when Defendant Cassata, saw a classified ad in Newsday marketing an option agreement for a 21 acre parcel of land on Old Country Road in Huntington, New York. The option agreement was dated September 27, 2002 and made between a Trust and Melville Partners, LLC. Melville had paid the trust $50,000.00 for the option and was asking $1 ,550,000.00 for it. If the option was exercised, the contract-vendee had the right to purchase the property for $5, 700,000.00 with a credit for the original $50,000.00 paid to the Trust for the option. "The elements of a cause of action recover damages for breach of contract are ( 1) the existence of a contract, (2) the Plaintiffs performance under the contract, (3) the Defendant's breach of the contract, and (4) resulting damages." Palmetto Partners, l. P. v. AJW Qualified Partners, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 804, 806, 921N.Y.S.2d260, 264 (2nd Dept. 201 1). The plan of the investors, now parties to the litigation, was to construct residential dwellings on the property and sell the homes in order to realize a profit for the venture known as Polo Grounds at Melville, LLC. The agreement was not to purchase and subdivide the property simply for the sake of creating one-acre lots. Rather, the express purpose was to realize a profit in both the subdivision and construction of high-end homes. The essence of Plaintiffs claim is reimbursement of capital contribution. The case represents good intentions and high hopes met with a dead end. There is no credible evidence that Plaintiff contracted for a money back guarantee. The trial commenced on April I 0, 2018 with a stipulation between counsel. The 1. The Court dismissed claims against Defendant Scuderi during the course of the trial. 2 of 5 [*FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2018 11:24 AM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 95 INDEX NO. 045878/2010 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2018 MEDAGLIA v. CASSATA INDEX NO.: 4587812010 PAGE3 stipulation noted that Plaintiff invested $514, 720 into what we will call the project which was known as the Polo Ground at Mellville LLC. Defendant Scuderi, invested $503,345. Defendant Cassata, invested $1,029,410. The LLC was organized in 2003 to do business in New York. Plaintiff Medaglia, was not one of the original investors but he became an investor sometime in 2003. From 2003 through 2009 Plaintiffs interest in the project was 25%. As a result of Cassata's additional investments, Plaintiffs investment was reduced to 22.9%. Scuderi's investment was reduced to 22.4%. The balance of the ownership rights in the entity was with Cassata. Again, the essence of the project was to buy a large tract of farmland in Melville. Upon obtaining the property it was to be subdivided into 1 acre building plots. The anticipated yield of between 14 and 18 separate building plots never materialized. The project was conceived when Cassata read an ad in Newsday and thereafter agreed to purchase and/or take an assignment of an option on the property for approximately $1.5 million. Cassata had a plan to make a very profitable investment. All the parties came together in a piecemeal fashion. Cassata and Scuderi, who knew each other, were the first. Defendant Cassata, convinced and/or suggested that Scuderi buy into the project. Which he did. Plaintiff Medaglia and Defendant Scuderi are related through some family ties. Eventually, Plaintiff Medaglia, invested a little more than a half million dollars into the project. There is no relevant writing anywhere involving Plaintiff and Defendants which describes the rights, duties and responsibilities of any of the parties, as same relates to the issues presented at trial. It should be noted that upon Plaintiff resting, the Court dismissed all causes of action except those for breach of contract and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff sought the return of his investment essentially alleging a breach of contract. The requirements for the formation of a contract are ( 1) at least two parties with legal capacity to contract, (2) mutual assent to the terms of the contract, and (3) consideration. No single act, phrase or other expression is determinative, except the Court should look to the totality of all of these factors, given the attendant circumstances, the situation of the parties, and the objectives they were striving to attain. A contract may consist of separate writings or documents if the writings make it clear that they ought to be read in conjunction with other writings to determine the intent of the parties. 3 of 5 [*FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2018 11:24 AM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 95 INDEX NO. 045878/2010 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2018 MEDAGLIA v. CASSATA INDEX NO.: 4587812010 PAGE4 Mutual assent is often referred to as a "meeting of the minds" of the parties on all essential terms of the contract. It is abundantly clear that there is absolutely no claim proved against Scuderi. The only meaningful reference to Scuderi in the entire testimony was that he told his relative, Megaglia, that it was "a sure thing." None of the basic elements of a contract were proved with any specificity whatsoever by Plaintiff against Scuderi. Plaintiffs opening statement suggested that in January 2008 the last payment was made by Medaglia. It was further noted that the agreement was not "lawyerized" and that an operating agreement was never executed. Further, Medaglia, was approached to buy into the proposed project which was to eventually exercise the option. Thereafter, a subdivision was anticipated and upon final approval luxury homes were to be built. Come November of 2008, a preliminary map was approved. It took five years to get there. However; litigation between the owners of the land and the assignees threatened to shut down the entire project. Much was made of the fact that in November 2008 a preliminary approval of the plan occurred with a deadline of six months to submit a final plan to the Town and County agencies. The essence of Plaintiffs case is that Defendant Medaglia "dropped the ball" and failed to complete the application process within the six month period. The explanation tendered by Defendant and credible in the eyes of the Court was that Supreme Court litigation seeking injunctive relief was pending. To further invest in the project when incurring substantial legal bills was not prudent. Plaintiff, Aldo Medaglia, is in fact, a businessman. He has spent 45 years in the interior construction business, mostly in the Buroughs. Polo Grounds was his first venture of this kind. His relative, Scuderi, introduced him to the project. It should be noted that Scuderi and Medaglia were partners in the construction business. However, by the time this case reached trial they were not on speaking terms. It is not in doubt that all of the parties to this litigation invested money. It is further not in doubt that no one saw any return or took distribution from invested dollars. Although much is alleged against Cassata, he took the biggest loss, in excess of $1 million. Although there was never a binding operating agreement, Cassata acted as the managing partner. There is nothing in the record that would indicate that this transaction was anything other than a venture attended with risks and potential benefits. None of the benefits were ever realized. Cassata was met with an economic downturn, an administrative process that was vexing, and diverse litigation. The project failed. 4 of 5 [*FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2018 11:24 AM 5] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 95 INDEX NO. 045878/2010 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2018 MEDAGLIA v. CASSATA INDEX NO.: 4587812010 PAGES The failure of the project was not a flip of the coin decision by Cassata. The venture failed upon advice of competent counsel and financial people. As noted herein, there was no meeting of the minds that anyone who invested in the project were guaranteed a return oftheir investment upon failure. Seasoned business persons entered into this agreement with their eyes wide open. As noted earlier upon close of Plaintiffs case, the Court dismissed counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The verdict is in favor of the Defendant, dismissing any remaining claims. The foregoing constitutes the Decision of this Court. Submit judgment on notice. Dated: June 28, 2018 5 of 5

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.