Bedessee v Bedessee

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bedessee v Bedessee 2022 NY Slip Op 32924(U) August 26, 2022 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 507184/2022 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. INDEX NO. 507184/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE .STATE OF N.EW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8 -·-·~------ --- ·-. -.----·---- --·---- ·.---. -- :---·-.x· NAWSHAD BEDESSEE, Plaintiffs , Decision arid order Index No. 507184/202 2 .,. against - VERMAN BEDESSEE, RAYMAN. BEDESSEE, INVOR BEDESSEE~ BEQESSE.E IMPORTS INC., ANDREW BEDESSEE CORP., BEDESSEE HOLDINGS INC., BEDESSEE EAST-WEST INDIAN FOOD, INC. 0/B/A BEDESSEE SPORTING GOODS, and OTHER XYZ CORPdRATIONS 1-10, the true names of which are unknown to the Plaintiff , Defendant , August 26, 2022 --------- ---- ··-·>---.--- ---· . ·---·· -- .- ..-·-·----x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN The plaintiff has moved pursuant to CPLR §6301 seeking a prelimina ry injunction staying the defendant from taking any action to sell or otherwise encumber any of the defendant entities, to remove any funds from the bank accounts of the defendant entities, permitting the plaintiff access tO the property, to restrain any action to disposses s the plaintiff and the plaintiff 's company and .requiring the.defend ant to disclose all the books and records and bank accounts of .the company, defendant s oppose the motion. The Papers we,re submitted by the parties and arguments held a:nd a:fter reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determina tion. The plaihtiff and the defendant s ate all brothers and all assumed cohtrol of their fat:ner' s businesse s upon his death in 2017. The complaint alleges, among other improprie ties; that defendant , Verma.rt Bedessee the rnana:ging member of the business, [* 1] 1 of 5 INDEX NO. 507184/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022 is diverting busine·ss a.ssets to his other wholly owned b.us·ines.-se$ and to pay personal expenses. The complaint further alleges the de.fehdant utilizes ernp"ioyees pf the _entities ,tQ work .for his own wholly owne.q. corrtpanies thereby ruining the financia-1 ·stability of the defendant entities. The corn.plaint !';ilieges causes of actiqn fa:r a decla·ra.tory judgement, .i;in acco.µnt.in,g, breach, of fiduciar)i du,ty, constru_ctive trust, conversion, cotpora_te waste and unjust enri,chment. The plairitif-·f has -riow mov.ed seekin9_ a preliminary in,-j-1,mcti_on restraining the defendant frorri transferring the assets of the compa.ny without prior notice.·, except iri the ord.ina].:'-y -cours~ of business. As note.ct, the plaintiff a.lso seel<s :Lnfotm!'3.tibn about the company's bank accounts and financial wherewithal, asserting -th_e d~f-ehda.nt has blocked plaintiff from such .a-ccess .. Conclusions· of Law ·CPLR S6301;. as i t pertains .t.o this. ca_s.e,. permits the court to issue a preliminary injunc.tion '\in any action .. ; where the plaintiff h<3.s q.e;man.ded an.d would be- entitled to a- judg_ement· restraining defenda:nt from. the commission or the continuance of _an act, which, if committed or continued durirtg the pendency of to the plaintif,_f-" ( id) .. ·i.nj ury would produceth~ action, . . - ·- A pi;:!.rty- see.king a preliminary injunction "mu~t demonstrate a probability of success on -the merits, danger· ·-of irreparable in.jury in the .:;bs~nce o_t the- injunction· and a .balanc.e of the ~qu_itie,s in it.s 2 [* 2] 2 of 5 INDEX NO. 507184/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022 f.avor" _{Nobu Next Door-, LLC v. Fine Arts .Hosin_g_. In.c. _, 4 NY3d 839, 800 NYS2d 48 [2005], see also, Alexandru v .. Pappas, 68 Ad3d fr90, 8·90 NY2d 593- [2d Dept.,· "2009:-]) . Further, each _qf the above elemerits must. be proven by the moving party with "clear and convincing evidence" ( Liotta v. Mat tone, 71 AD3.d 7 41, 9 0 o· NY s2d. 6:2 [2d Dept .. , 2'010l). ¢Onside.ring the first pr.ong, estabJishihg a lik:elihood of $Uccess on th.e merits, the plaintiff. must prima fac-ie· establi'sh a nfasoha,ble probab.ili ty ·c--f succ.es·s ·(Barbes Restaurant :rnc ..• v. S~uzer 118 tLC, 140 AD3d 430~ 33 NYS3d 4.3 [2d Dept., 2016]). In this ca·$e the injuri.cti.;>"n is sd-ilght- ·-becaus·e: it i.s alleged _the tie:s in m:;3.ny . . de,fenda:nts ha.ve br:eached their duties. tp :t;:he enti w_ays including diverting fund:s, taking tina-uthorized loa:ns· and t'he denial ·of any owne..t·ship interests o"f the plaintiff. Howeve.r, the defendants dispute these c:ontentions. and assert the plai.ii.tiff hi3.S di vert1::_d funds of i:he -company for his owri pers·onal use. Mo.reove_rr t,he cJef.e·n.darits asse·rt the: pl-aintif f. i.s not an owner o.f the cotnpanie.s and has no standing seeking injunctive relie.f. However, th~ p1ainti+ f h_as p-r1;3:sented evidence in the .fo:rm of a:-n· email. sent by- defendant Verma:n. Bedessee aGknowl.edgin g the3.. . plaint.:i,ff's ownership interest in the defendant entities. While the defendants. -still dispute that content.ion i;l:nQ. ·.q·L_:,cq:v-ery w-ill sharpen these issues, at this juncture the plaintiff has demonstra.ted ownership interests· in the entities·.. Thus··, .ev_en if .:Ls-sues o.f fact exist-, the- -court -can still -Qonolude the movi_ng 3 [* 3] 3 of 5 INDEX NO. 507184/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022 :party has demonst rated -a likel:l..ho od o"f· succe-ss on the mer:Lts ( see, Ruiz v. Meloney-~ 2 6 ADJd -4135, $10 NYS2d 2:16 [2d Dept., .2006J). Indeed, \)the mere exis..tence o,.f a.n is·sul?- 0£ fact will not lts·e.lf .be g-rounds for th.e · denial of the moti•on'' (Ar;carnot1e,Makinano v; Britton P-roperty Inc.,. 83 AD3d 62.3, Dept. , 2011]) . This 920 NY$2d ·_362: [2d. is: especia. lly true where the denia:L of an injuncti on would disturb thE3 status quo and render the continua .ti•on of the l_awsuit ine-ffE;;c tual ·(t-iasjid Usman, Inc., v. Beech 140, LlC, 6.8 AD3d 942; 39·2 NYS2d 430 ("2_d Dept,, Thus., the moving par.ty is not reqµired to 2·009]), preseor1t "conclu sive proof'; of its entitlem ent to an injuncti on and ''the. mer:-e fact that there indeed may be question s of fact for trial does not preClude a court from exercisi ng its discreti on in granting a·n injuncti on" (Ying Fung Moy v. Hohi Umeki, 10AD3d 604, 781 NYS2d 684 [2d Dept., 2004]). Of course, i.s,sues of fact w:ill necessa rily pre'vent t,he issqanqe of ar1y injuncti on only where the factual iss._ues "s_ubver t [._s] the pla._inti ff' s likeliho od of success on the merit::; in this. case t.o such a :degree that i t canno;t l:::ie said that the. plainti ff establisp .ed a cle~r right to relief;' {County of Westche ste.r v. United Wa:ter New Rochelle , 32 AD3d 979r 822 NYS:Zcl Z::87 [2~ Dept., 2966]) , In this cas~ th~ pl~iriti ff se~ks an injuncti on ta .s,top the defenda nts from taking· any action that coul.ci potentic ;tlly harm the Companie.$. where th~ plaint_i ff as,serts he maintain s owners.h ip io.tere-s ts. Even., though such ownersh ip is disputed - the piainti ff 4 [* 4] 4 of 5 INDEX NO. 507184/2022 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:26 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 98 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022 has satisfied the burden demonstrating a likelihood of success on t he merits. Any allegations the plaintiff has acted imprope r l y do not undermine the c l aims of ownership sufficient to deny the inju nction . In order to satisfy the second prong of irreparable harm it must be demonstrated tha t monetary damages are insufficient (Autoo ne Insu rance Company v. Manhattan Heights Medic a l P.C., 24 Misc3d 1229(A) , 899 NYS2d 57 [Supreme Court Queens County, 2009 ) ) . While it is true that some of the allegations only conce rn monetary matters, that n arrow view of the case fails to appreciate the plaintiff's potential loss of ownership of the entities which is something that canno t be compe nsa ted with mere money. Therefore, the plaintiff has asserted irrepara ble injury. Further, the balance of the equities favors the plaintiff. Therefore , based on the foregoing, the motion seeking an injunction preventing the defendants from taking any action with respect to any of the properties, o t he r than in the ordina r y course of business, without the plaintiff's consent is granted. So ordered . ENTER : DATED : August 26 , 2022 Broo klyn N. Y. Hon JSC '.Leon Ruchelsman 5 [* 5] 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.