Jaybar Realty Corp. v. Armato

175 A.D.3d 1391

109 N.Y.S.3d 337

JAYBAR REALTY CORP., et al., Appellants,

v.Joseph ARMATO, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

2016–08954

Index No. 57692/13

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—April 12, 2019

September 18, 2019

Silverberg Zalantis LLP, Tarrytown, N.Y. (Katherine Zalantis and Christie Tomm Addona of counsel), for appellants.

Aboulafia Law Firm, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Jack Glanzberg and Matthew S. Aboulafia of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and for the imposition of a constructive trust, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Mary H. Smith, J.), dated July 20, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the motion of the defendants Joseph Armato, Venetian Contracting, Inc., and Nationwide Contracting Consulting, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the first through third and tenth through thirteenth causes of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Jaybar Realty Corp. against them and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff JB Park Place Realty, LLC, on the ground that it lacked standing.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs, Jaybar Realty Corp. (hereinafter Jaybar) and JB Park Place Realty, LLC (hereinafter JB Park), commenced this action against, among others, Venetian Contracting, Inc. (hereinafter Venetian), Nationwide Contracting Consulting, Inc. (hereinafter Nationwide), and Joseph Armato, a principal in both Venetian and Nationwide (hereinafter collectively the defendants), seeking, inter alia, damages for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and the imposition of a constructive trust. The plaintiffs also alleged civil violations of the federal Racketeer–Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law (hereinafter RICO) and sought to pierce the corporate veils of Venetian and Nationwide and to hold Armato personally liable. The plaintiffs did not allege a breach of contract cause of action.

According to the plaintiffs, Venetian, through its principal Armato, agreed to undertake various repairs to real property owned by Jaybar that had been damaged as a result of a ruptured water main in exchange for obtaining the insurance proceeds payable as a result of the loss. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants did not use the insurance proceeds to repair the property but instead wrongfully benefitted by taking the proceeds for their own uses.

The defendants moved, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. They also contended that JB Park lacked standing. In an order dated July 20, 2016, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the civil RICO causes of action as premature. However, the court granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by JB Park on the ground that it lacked standing, and that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing all non-RICO causes of action insofar as asserted by Jaybar against the defendants.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that JB Park lacked standing to recover damages on the causes of action asserted by it in the complaint. A court "has no inherent power to right a wrong unless thereby the civil, property or personal rights of the plaintiff in the action or the petitioner in the proceeding are affected" ( Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v. Daniels, 33 N.Y.3d 44, 50, 98 N.Y.S.3d 504, 122 N.E.3d 21 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that JB Park did not own the subject property or suffer any damage as a result of the defendants' actions, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Jacob v. Conway, 150 A.D.3d 973, 974, 56 N.Y.S.3d 138 ; Xavier Constr. Co., Inc. v. Bronxville Union Free Sch. Dist., 143 A.D.3d 976, 977, 39 N.Y.S.3d 517 ).

We also agree with the Supreme Court that the written agreement signed by the principals of Jaybar and Venetian on or about October 6, 2011 (hereinafter the Venetian Agreement), constitutes a valid and enforceable agreement. The defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the " ‘totality of the parties' conduct,’ and the objective manifestation[ ] of the parties' intent as evidenced by their expressed words and deeds, establishe[d] as a matter of law the existence of the agreement" ( Stonehill Capital Mgt. LLC v. Bank of the W., 28 N.Y.3d 439, 454, 45 N.Y.S.3d 864, 68 N.E.3d 683 ; see Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v. 151 E. Post Rd. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 88, 91, 571 N.Y.S.2d 686, 575 N.E.2d 104 ). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Stonehill Capital Mgt. LLC v. Bank of the W., 28 N.Y.3d at 454, 45 N.Y.S.3d 864, 68 N.E.3d 683 ).

Since the existence of a valid contract governing the subject matter of a dispute generally precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter (see CSI Group, LLP v. Harper, 153 A.D.3d 1314, 1317, 61 N.Y.S.3d 592 ; Saunders Ventures, Inc. v. Catcove Group, Inc., 151 A.D.3d 991, 995, 58 N.Y.S.3d 417 ), the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging unjust enrichment insofar as asserted against Venetian and Nationwide (see Goldman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 N.Y.3d 561, 572, 807 N.Y.S.2d 583, 841 N.E.2d 742 ). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CSI Group, LLP v. Harper, 153 A.D.3d at 1317, 61 N.Y.S.3d 592 ; Saunders Ventures, Inc. v. Catcove Group, Inc., 151 A.D.3d at 995, 58 N.Y.S.3d 417 ).

We also agree with the Supreme Court's grant of that branch of the defendants' motion which was for judgment as a matter of...