Rabbinical Ctr. of Europe v Chinuch

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rabbinical Ctr. of Europe v Chinuch 2018 NY Slip Op 33425(U) December 18, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 513073/18 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman 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: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2018] .NYSCE~ INDEX NO. 513073/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2019 DOC. NO. 24 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 11 -----------------------~------------------x ZOi8 DEC 24 AM 9: 59 RABBINICAL CENTRE OF EUROPE, Plaintiffs, Decision and order - against - Index No. 513073/18 f'\"J ~ "').____ 2-- ),- MERKAZ MOSDOS CHINUCH AND ELYOKIM WOLFF Defendants, December 18, 2018 ------------------------------------------x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN The defendants Merkaz Mosdos Chinuch and Elyokim Wolff have moved seeking to dismiss the complaint filed by the plaintiff on the grounds it fails to state a cause of action and on documentary evidence. seeking The plaintiff has opposed the motion and has cross-moved sanctions. arguments held. Papers were submitted by the parties and After reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determination. There is no dispute the plaintiff transferred to the defendant sums in the amount of $854,000 on December 27, 2007. defendant asserts the transfer was a gift while The the plaintiff asserts the transfer was a loan which has not substantially been paid. This lawsuit was commenced by the plaintiff alleging essentially that defendants have not returned most of the funds loaned. This motion has been filed and the defendants have moved seeking to dismiss the complaint on various grounds. The chiefly argue the transfer of funds was not a loan thus the complaint must be dismissed. They further contend the plaintiff is not even a proper party since the plaintiff did not actually transfer the 1 of 4 [*[FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2018] INDEX NO. 513073/2018 NYSCE,f DOC. NO. 24 funds. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2019 Lastly, defendant Wolff seeks to dismiss the complaint on the grounds he did not receive any funds in his personal capacity. Conclusions of Law It is well settled that upon a m8tion to dismiss the court must determine, accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, whether the plaintiff can succeed upon any reasonable view of those facts (Davids v. 2018]). State, 159 AD3d 987, 74 NYS3d 288 [2d Dept., Further, all the allegaticns in the complaint are deemed true and all reasonable inferences may be drawn in favor of the plaintiff 479, (Dunleavy v. 789 NYS2d 164 Hilton Hall Apartments Co., [2d Dept., 2005]). Moreover, LLC, 14 AD3d to succeed on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence such evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's allegations (Gould Decolator, 121 AD3d 845, 994 NYS2d 368 [2d Dept., 2014]). contract, which is "unambiguous, authentic and v. Thus, a undeniable" is documentary evidence which can support a motion to dismiss (Attias v. Costeria, 120 AD3d 1281, 993 NY~2d 59 [2d Dept., 2014]). In this case the defendant has introduced a receipt wherein such receipt indicates the money given to the defendant was a gift and not a loan. That evidence specifically allegations contained in the complaint. contradicts the However, the plaintiff has sufficiently presented evidence substantiating the allegations of the complaint (Hicksville Dry Cleaners, Inc., v. Stanley Fastening 2 2 of 4 [*[FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2018] INDEX NO. 513073/2018 NYSCEE DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2019 Systems L.P., Specifically, 37 AD3d 218, 830 NYS2d 530 Dept., [Pt 2007]). defendant Rabbi Wolff acknowledged the money was given as a loan. On July 17, 2008 Rabbi Wolff noted that "I hereby undertake to repay at the earliest opportunity the debt in the sum of eight hundred and fifty-four thousand dollars that I received from you as a loan ... " (see, Document submitted within Plaintiff's Notice of Cross-Motion, Exhibit 'A'). Thus, the receipt standing alone does not resolve all factual issues and does not conclusively dispose of the plaintiff's claims (see, Fontanetta v. Doe, 73 AD3d 78, 898 NYS2d 569 [2d Dept., 2010]). The defendant argues that document and any other statements or texts by Rabbi Wolff that purport to concede the agreement was a loan were only made because of pressure by the plaintiff. The defendant will have an opportunity to assert those defenses, however, at this juncture, before any discovery has taken place the defendant has not unequivocally demonstrated dismissal of the complaint. Furthermore, there is no merit to the argument the plaintiff lacks has standing to asserted that initiate one of directly to defendant burdensome task of funds a wire the particularly true its donors rather receiving second since this a time the wire to lawsuit. than engage from the the donor defendant. does the funds were received from the plaintiff. 3 of 4 plaintiff agreed to wire the defendant 3 The not funds in the and then This dispute Therefore, is that Merkaz [*[FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2018] INDEX NO. 513073/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2019 .NJSCER DOC. NO. 24 Mosdos Chinuch's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint is denied without prejudice. Concerning Rabbi Wolff there obtained any Therefore, funds the is no evidence he personally from the plaintiff in a motion of Rabbi Wolff personal seeking to capacity. dismiss the complaint is granted. The cross-motion seeking sanctions is denied. So ordered. ENTER: DATED: December 18, 2018 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. Leon Ruchelsman JSC ,.._, = co 0 rr1 ("'") N ~ ;::r.. :I: a.. 0 N 4 4 of 4 __ ,_ . ·~..., .rr::_ "'Tj ~- ~,-· '• o_, ( r·r: -•·