Hollow Road Farms, Inc. v. Quo Vadis International, LLC

• Decision Date: 20 July 2006
• Docket Number: 99232.
• Citation: 819 N.Y.S.2d 338,2006 NY Slip Op 05871,31 A.D.3d 1023
• Parties: HOLLOW ROAD FARMS, INC., Respondent, v. QUO VADIS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

31 A.D.3d 1023

819 N.Y.S.2d 338

2006 NY Slip Op 05871

HOLLOW ROAD FARMS, INC., Respondent, v.QUO VADIS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Appellants.

99232.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

July 20, 2006.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court(Doyle, J.), entered July 6, 2005 in Columbia County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff.

Carpinello, J.

In 2001, defendants sought to develop a wine industry in Bulgaria and hired plaintiff as a consultant to pursue the matter.Under the terms of a one-page consulting agreement, plaintiff's president and sole shareholder, Joan Snyder, was to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for the development of the industry, identify potential financing entities and acquire financing to implement it.Snyder was to be paid $10,000 per month for six months for her services, plus out-of-pocket expenses, and the contract could be canceled on one month's notice by either party.Although the agreement was purportedly between plaintiff and defendantQuo Vadis International, LLC, defendantNed Kennan, Quo Vadis's chair and principal shareholder, signed the contract in his individual capacity.

According to Snyder, she began billing for her services as of October 1, 2001.She was paid for services and expenses incurred during the months of October, November and December 2001.She was not paid, however, for services and expenses incurred during January 2002.Kennan first raised some concerns in early 2002 that although Snyder's work to date made "conceptual sense," it was too general for him to make any decisions.Nonetheless, he did not cancel the contract.On March 12, 2002, he informed Snyder in writing that he was no longer interested in pursuing the project.Snyder treated this correspondence as a 30-day notice of cancellation and thereafter submitted a final invoice, which included a bill for services rendered during February and March 2002.

When payment was never remitted for the outstanding sum of $33,509.25, plaintiff sued Quo Vadis and Kennan for, among other claims, breach of contract.Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, asserting that plaintiff was not entitled to these funds because Snyder did not perform her contractual obligations.Following a nonjury trial, plaintiff prevailed on its breach of contract claim and was awarded damages in the amount of $33,509.25.Kennan was held personally liable for this amount.This appeal ensued.

Defendants argue that plaintiff did not fulfill its obligations under the contract and that Supreme Court's finding to the contrary is against the weight of the evidence.As often noted, "[i]n reviewing a decision following a nonjury trial, this Court is empowered to independently review the weight of the evidence presented and grant judgment warranted by the record, giving due deference to the trial court's determinations regarding witness credibility"(Poli v Lema,24 AD3d 981, 983[2005][internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).Applying this standard to the instant case, we find no basis to disturb Supreme Court's finding that plaintiff in fact performed its contractual obligations.

Snyder provided detailed testimony outlining the work that she performed during the six-month contract period.According to her, during this time period, she educated herself on the wine industry in Bulgaria, collected written...