Pryor Cashman LLP v Mehta

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Pryor Cashman LLP v Mehta 2022 NY Slip Op 33245(U) September 20, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 652339/2021 Judge: Lucy Billings 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: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/2022 04:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 INDEX NO. 652339/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART. 41 ------------------------------------ ---x Index No. 652339/2021 PRYOR CASHMAN LLP, Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER - against HEMANG MEHTA, NEVIL SHAH, SUNRISE CAPITAL PARTNERS MANAGEMENT_LLC d/b/a SUNRISE CAPITAL PARTNERS, and SCP CRUSADER LLC, Defendants ---------------------- ,---.-. -----. ------x LUCY BILLINGS( J.S.C.: Plaintiff law firm moves, pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 2104, to enforce a written settlement agree~ent between plaintiff and defendants in this action by plaintiff to recover fees and expenses for legal services to defendants, its former clients. The agreement required defendants.to pay plaintiff $150,000.00, out of nearly ~250,000.00 that plaintiff originally claimed, through periodic installments, and required defendants Mehta and Shah to execute confessions of judgment for the $150,000.00 debt. The full $150,000.00 is hd0 overdue·~ The settlement agreement also entitles plaintiff to reasonable attorneys' fees for any efforts necessary to enforc;::e _the. agr~ement. I. FORMATION -OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On November 2.9, 2Q21, '.plaintiff forwarded to defendants' attorney Jeffrey Wa_sserman, :a pr9pos:ed settlement agreement pryorcashman922 [* 1] 1 2 of 7 INDEX NO. 652339/2021 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/2022 04:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 i__ ------ - - - - - - - - --- -- --~·-· -~ - ' · - -··. reflecting the parties' prior negotiations. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2022 On December 6, 2021, Wasserman confirmed to plaintiff that defendants were "good with the agreement," subject to one requested change in the provision for notice of a default. Aff. of Joshua Weigeniberg Ex. B, at 1. Wasserman added that, •"One¢ you send me an updated draft, I'll get it to my clients for signature/notary." Id. at 2. The next day plaintiff exchanged iri ~pdated draft that incorporated the 0 sole change defendants requested. The following day, December 8, 202~, Wasserman confirmed to plaintiff that he had transmitted the settlement agreement tb -~is clients "for signatures/ notaries." Weigensberg Aff. Ex. E. On December 10, 2021, Wasserman provided to plaintiff the settlement agreement sign·ed by defendants Mehta, Sunrise Capital Partners Management LLC, and SCP Crusader LLC and a confession of judgment signed by Mehta. On December 13, 2021, Wasserman advised plaintiff that he was in possession of the settlement agreement signed by Shah and a confession of judgment signed by Shah, but was holding the signed documents until defendants marshaled their assets to make the first payments. II. VIOLATION .OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Defendants never forwarded Shah's signed settlement agreement and . 6onf~ssioh 6f~judgme~t:t6~laintiff;· never made ariy . . . .. . . payment to plaintiff;, nor,. afte~ repeiv{ng plaintiff's notices of . . . . default pursuant to the agreement, c~-r~d their default. pryorcashman922 [* 2] 2 3 of 7 INDEX NO. 652339/2021 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/2022 04:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2022 Defendants Sunrise Capital ·partners ·Managem€nt- LLC and ..SCPCrusader LLC do not oppose plaint~ff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Defendants Mehta and Shah do not dispute the above facts, but point out that the settlement agreement triggered defendants' payment obligations only once "this Agreement becomes fully executed," arid defendants never received the agreement with plaintiff's sigriatuie. § 1 (a) • Weigensberg Aff. Ex. C For purposes ·of ~nforcing the agreen;ient against defendants, however, only the signatures by the parties to be held liable· under the agreefuent, hei~ defendants, are relevant. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law§ 5-703(2); Kaplan v. Lippman, 320, 325 75 N.Y.2d (1990); Split Rail Holdings LLC v. 176 Grand St. Corp., 166 A;D.3d 515, 516 (1st Dep't 2018)\ . . . Because the undisputed . evidence establishes that .all defendatits had signed the agreement by December 13, 2021, that date trigg~red their payment obligations. Moreover, as e~plaine~ below, as long as defendants accepted the a:greementi even their iignatures are unnecessary. Defendants question why, if their signatures were unnecessary for the setfle~ent agre~ment to bind defendants, plaintiff continued to request Shah's signed documents. When defendants refused to e~change those documents, plaintiff engaged in further negotiations to:~ers~ad~ ~eiend~nts to exchange them, to enabie plaintiff preseht them to the Clerk of the Court to enter a judgment and·avOid the-current motion. pryorcashman922 [* 3] · .. 3 4 of 7 Plaintiff's INDEX NO. 652339/2021 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/2022 04:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2022 •-- ··-· ·---·---•·-----·--··---·- willingness to explore alternatives and exha'ust all options to avoid its current motion does hot under~ine its merit. Moreover, in nonE; .of any further negotiations did defendants In fact they now protest that pla:intiff't BighaturE= w,as ri-eeded. admit that they would ,~e:je'ct plaintiffi:~ signature were it provided. III. ENFORCEMENT OF THE:AGREEMENT let a1·one demonstrated, No- defendant has' cla'irried, any basis, such a;:, illegalitylduress, collusion, -fraud, or mutual mistake, to set aside the.settlement agreer:nent.· 52 (2012) ;,,Ha116Sk 'v•. Sta.ti of New York, N.Y.3d 46~ (1st Dep' t 2016); Chelsea' (1st Dep' t 2009). 19 ' Nor -does- 19 64.N.Y.2d i3.6 A.D.3d 551, (J.984,); Barclay v:'.Ciiibank, N~A., 224, 230 terms. Simkin v. Blank, :Jamis-, Assoc.';. ,V/ ·.' -·,. ' 551 602 67 A. . D. 3d 601, any de(enda~t- dispute the agreement's Mehta and Shahdo_not even dispute .that their attorney accepted the terms that plai:1tiff. offered., forming the agreement and rende:ring_ i t erifoic.ea~re notwithst~nding a subsequent refusal Ost6ji~ ~- Life Me~~ Tech., to sign the written;,c1.gr8ement. 201 _A. D. 3d 522, 2022); Ph'.i..ladelphia Ins. s2::i><'fast' 'Dep' t ·: :-~~-:i: "¥ & :'(1st bep,-t 2021); Lerner v. D_. 3d 418~ 178 :A. Estate{-Iri6., Co .. . Real . ' . . . . 420 (1st Dep' t ~ 61 A.D.3d 118, 124-25 2019); Kowalchuk v. Str"oup~ ---'-. 2009) . Indem. .. Co. v. Kendall, 197~A\o.·3cl 75,. 81_ Newmark Inc., The acceptanc~ hy ~. (1st Dep't . • .· .defendcirits' atto'rney binds defendants, ,v . . : ~- . -· .- so that they may not avoid their.obligations under the agreement 4 pryorcashman922· . .f.· [* 4] 5 of 7 -·-• ----------·---·--- INDEX NO. 652339/2021 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/2022 04:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 by refusing to sign it. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2022 Philadelphi~ Ins. Indem. Co. v. Kendall, 197 A.D.3d at 80; Lerner v~ Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc., 178 A.D.3d at 420. Here, the uridisputed e~idence establishes that Shah as well as the other defendants did sign the agreement, that Shah as well as Mehta signed a confession of judgment, and that plaintiff merely is not in posses~ion of the agreement or confession of judgment that Shah signed. Nothing in the parties' communications forming the settlement agreement required that it be signed to be effective,· ·1et alone that the parties be in possession of the signed· ,agreement. Ostojic v. Life Med. Tech., Inc., 201 A.D.3d at 523-24; Lerner v. Newmark Inc., 178 A.D.3d at 420; K0walchuk 25. v. & Co. Real Estate, Stroup, 61 A.D.3d at 124- In sum, all the eviden~e in the record demonstrates an agreement, and no evidence casts any doubt on that conclusion. To enforce the sett1~ment agreement, the court awards a judgment in plaintiff's·fa~or against def~ndants jointly and individually for $150,000.00. C.P.L.R. § 2104. Plaintiff's motion does not seek pre-juclgment interest, but plaintiff also is entitled to its reasonable·. attorri:eys' fees incurred in enforcing the settlement agreement: As plaintiff has not shown that it retained an attO,z-ney to enforce the·agreernent, .rather than represeniing itself, i£ ~liiAti~f seek~'suc~ fees, within 30 days after entry of this~order~ plaintif£ may move for an award of pryorcashman922 [* 5] ·s 6 of 7 INDEX NO. 652339/2021 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/2022 04:36 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2022 attorneys' fees,-·supported by admissible evi.-dence ·of the·· - - attorneys' charged. reasonable time expended, services rendered, and rate Matter of Freeman, 34 N.Y.2d 1, 9 (1974); JK Two LLC v. Garber, 171 A.D.3d 496, 49,6 (1st Dep't 2019); Gordon v. Verizon Communicatioh:S, Inc., 1A8 A.D.3d 146, 165 (1st Dep't 2017); Bankers Fed. Sav. Bank v. Off W. Broadway Devs., 224 A.D.2d 376, 378 (1st Dep't 1996). DATED: September 20, 2022 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C. LUCY BILLINGS J.S;C pryorcashman922 [* 6] 6 7 of 7

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.