In re Mattone Group Spripgnex LLC

2021 NY Slip Op 31958(U)

In the Matter of Mattone Group Spripgnex LLC, Petitioner, v. CFM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Respondent, For a Determination of the Fair Value of Respondent's Interest in Mattone Group Springnex LLC under Article 4 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, Section 1005 of the New York Limited Liability Company Law, and Section 623 of the New York Business Corporation Law.

Index No. 719775 2020

Supreme Court, Queens County

June 28, 2021

Unpublished Opinion

Motion Date February 2, 2021

Present: HONORABLE LEONARD LIVOTE, Justice

The following numbered papers were read on this application by Mattone Group Springnex, LLC (the Company) seeking, among other things, a judgment determining the fair value of a former interest of CFM Development, LLC (CFM), pursuant to LLCL 1005 (b) and BCL 623 (h); and a cross motion by CFM seeking, among other things, dismissal, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

Papers

Numbered

Notice of Petition - Petition -Exhibits

E1-E21

Notice of Cross Motion - Affirmation - Affidavit - Exhibits

E26-E37

Reply Affidavits

E38-E42

Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion by petitioner for, inter alia, a determination of the fair value of the former interest of respondent; and this cross motion for dismissal, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), are determined as follows:

In 2000, the Company entered into an Amended & Restated Operating Agreement,, which was further amended in April 2010, and in September 2020. Said Amended Operating Agreement listed Carl F. Mattone ("Mattone") with a 28.5% membership interest in the Company. Petitioner contends that in 2013, Mattone assigned his 28.5% interest to CFM, an entity wholly- owned by Carl, for tax purposes. No formal written assignment exists.

In September 2020, the holders of a majority interest in the Company consented to buyout CFM, and agreed to a merger with a "wholly-owned subsidiary," MGS SUB, LLC. The Company agreed to pay the amount of $4, 000, 000.00 to CFM for its share. On September 30, 2020, the merger became official by the filing of a Certificate of Merger with the State. On October 2, 2020 the Company sent CFM a Notice of Merger and Dissenters' Rights, pursuant to LLCL 407 and 1007, and CFM served the Company with an Election to Dissent on October 21, 2020. The next day, the Company served a formal Offer to Purchase Membership Interest, in the amount of $4, 000, 000 as the stated "fair value," pursuant to LLCL 1005 (a), which was rejected, and petitioner brought this proceeding.

The Court will first address the respondent's cross motion to dismiss. "A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiffs factual allegations conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" (Farro v Schochet, 190 A.D.3d 689, 693 [2d Dept 2021] quoting Creative Rest, Inc. v Dyckman Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 184 A.D.3d 803, 804 [2d Dept 2020]; see Kolchins v Evolution Mkts., Inc., 31 N.Y.3d 100 [2018]; Greenberg v Spitzer, 155 A.D.3d 27 [2d Dept 2017]). For the evidence to be considered "documentary" under that statute, such evidence must be of undisputed authenticity, unambiguous and undeniable (see Berkovits v Berkovits, 190 A.D.3d 911 [2d Dept 2021]; Qureshi v Vital Tranp Inc., 173 A.D.3d 1076 [2d Dept 2019]; Anderson v Armento. 139 A.D.3d 769 [2016]). "To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documentary evidence which forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of plaintiff s claim" (Sciadone v Stepping Stones Associates L.P., 148 A.D.3d 953, 954 [2017]; see Pacella v RSA Consultants, Inc., 164 A.D.3d 806 [2d Dept 2018]; Philips v Taco Bell Corp., 152 A.D.3d 806 [2017]).

The cross motion contends that Mattone did not assign his interest in the Company to CFM arguing that there is no written assignment document in existence; that any such assignment would be "null and void," as the March 26, 2000 Operating Agreement, at § 6.1, does not permit a member to transfer a membership interest; and that contrary to petitioners claim, the K-l tax forms fail to establish the assignment to CFM. While the Operating Agreement does not allow a member to transfer a "membership interest," it does not specifically prohibit the assignment of an "economic interest." Said Operating Agreement contains a definition of an "economic interest holder," and, in Art. 1, provides for "economic interest holder" status in the Company. LLCL 603 (a) (1) states that a member may assign an economic interest, in whole or in part, with the only affect being "to entitle the assignee to receive ... distributions and allocations of profits and losses to which the assignor would be entitled" (603 [a] [3]), and, upon assignment, "a member ceases to be a member and to have the power to exercise any rights or powers of a member" (603 [a] [4]; see Behrend v New Windsor Group, LLC, 180 A.D.3d 636 [2d Dept 2020]; Born to Build, LLC v Saleh, 43 Misc.3d 1213[a] [So Ct., Nas. Cty., 2014]). Such statute does not require a formal written assignment to effect such economic interest transfer. In opposition, petitioner contends that it does not allege that CFM obtained a "membership interest" in the Company, but merely became an "economic interest holder," and refers to the language of the Notice of Merger and Dissenters' Rights, which states, in relevant part, that the unspecified "interests of the Company held by CFM ... shall be converted for the consideration set forth," and refers to the other merger documents, which reflect that the subject assignment would make CFM only a "non-member holder of Mattoness economic interest" in the Company.

Additionally, "contractual rights may be waived if they are knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally abandoned" (Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P., 7 N.Y.3d 96, 104 [2006]; see 159 MP Corp. v Redbridge-Bedford, LLC, 160 A.D.3d 176 [2d Dept 2018]). Such abandonment may be established by "affirmative conduct or by failure to act so as to evince an intent not to claim a purported advantage" (Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P, at 104, quoting Gen, Motors Acceptance Corp v Clifton-Fine Cent. Sch. Dist., 85 N.Y.2d 232, 236 [1995]; see County of Suffokk v Ironshore Indem., Inc., 187 A.D.3d 1137 [2d Dept 2020]; Village of Kiryas Joel v County of Orange, 144 A.D.3d 895 [2d Dept 2016]). Respondent has failed to establish that, through its actions and/or conduct since 2013, it did not waive such contractual prohibition herein.

Respondent attempts to support that branch of its cross motion regarding the import of CFM's tax records with an affidavit from Sydney E. Unger, CPA, who, initially, notes that the subject Operating Agreement distinguishes between "members" and "economic interest holders," but then solely proceeds to opine with respect to the non-transfer of a "membership interest" herein. As stated previously, petitioner asserts that only an "economic interest" was assigned in this matter, a consideration not addressed by Mr. Unger. Further, Mr. Unger's conclusion, i.e., that the proffered New York State and New York City tax returns "are not inconsistent with CFM's position that the alleged assignment of Mattone's membership interest did not take place "is both ambiguously and equivocally worded, and falls far short of an indisputable opinion which could necessarily support a dismissal herein. Additionally, while "[a] tax return can constitute evidence of a written assignment (Rosin v Schnitzler 2018 NY Slip Op 32320[U], *2 [So Ct, Kings Cty. 2018]), tax records do not constitute "documentary-evidence, as they lack the essential qualities of undisputed authenticity and undeniability (see Berkovtts v Berkovits, 190 A.D.3d911; Qureshi v Vital Tranp, Inc 173 A.D.3d 1076 Anderson v Armento, 139 A.D.3d 769).

Both sides agree that "[a] party to litigation may not take a position contrary to a position taken in an income tax return ... (which has been) made under the penalties of perjury on income tax returns" (Mahoney-Buntzman v Buntzman, 12 N.Y.3d 415 422 [2...