Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC v. Paiz, 11535
| Decision Date | 21 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | 11535,Index 652396/16 |
| Citation | 124 N.Y.S.3d 685,183 A.D.3d 486 |
| Parties | PROSPECT FUNDING HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Shannon PAIZ, Defendant, Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq., et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Hegge & Confusione, LLC, New York (Michael Confusione of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Jon L. Norinsberg, New York (Chaya M. Gourarie of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered on or about May 21, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its claims against defendants Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. (Norinsberg), Jon Norinsberg Esq., PLLC and the Law Offices of Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. (collectively, Norinsberg Defendants) for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty, and sua sponte granted the Norinsberg Defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The breach of contract claim was correctly dismissed because the relevant documents do not identify the Norinsberg Defendants as parties and do not impose upon them any obligations to plaintiff. The parties identified in those documents are plaintiff, as "Seller," and defendant Paiz, as "Purchaser." The Purchase Agreement is signed by Paiz and plaintiff's representative, not by the Norinsberg Defendants. The liquidated damages provision of the Purchase Agreement defines plaintiff's remedies against Paiz (seller) upon seller's defaults. The annexed "Important Information" is signed by Paiz only. In his capacity as Paiz's attorney, Norinsberg signed a "Certification" below Paiz's signature on the Important Information document, stating that he discussed the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement with Paiz, that he has a contingency fee agreement with her, that all proceeds of the suit in which he is representing her will be disbursed via the attorney's trust account, and that he is following Paiz's written instructions with regard to the Purchase Agreement. Those written instructions are contained in the "Irrevocable Letter of Direction," in which Paiz instructs Norinsberg "NOT to release any funds to me until [any dispute with plaintiff] is resolved." Norinsberg also signed an "Attorney Acknowledgment" at the end of the Irrevocable Letter of Direction, acknowledging receipt of the letter from his client and reiterating his agreement to follow his client's direction, and stating that plaintiff "has relied" on the Irrevocable Letter of Direction and the Attorney Acknowledgment.
Similarly, the promissory estoppel claim was correctly dismissed because plaintiff cannot identify a "clear and unambiguous promise" made to it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P.S. Fin., LLC v. Eureka Woodworks, Inc.
...for the District of Nebraska was persuaded by a decision of the Appellate Division, First Department (see Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC v. Paiz, 183 A.D.3d 486, 487, 124 N.Y.S.3d 685 ), which also involved Prospect Funding and apparently "identical" documents to those at issue in the Distr......
-
Plaintiff Funding Holding, Inc. v. Ugochukwu
...as a matter of law dismissing the breach of contract cause of action asserted against them (see Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC v. Paiz , 183 A.D.3d 486, 487, 124 N.Y.S.3d 685 [2020] ). To establish a cause of action for conversion of settlement proceeds, a plaintiff must show "legal ownersh......
-
Prospect Funding Holdings (NY), LLC v. Ronald J. Palagi, P.C.
...Funding] "has relied" on the Irrevocable Letter of Direction and the Attorney Acknowledgment. Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC v. Paiz, 124 N.Y.S.3d 685, 687 (App. Div.), leave to appeal denied, 157 N.E.3d 132 (N.Y. 2020) (brackets in original removed). Accordingly, the Appellate Division con......
- PH-105 Realty Corp v. Elayaan