Scarola Zubatov & Schaffzin PLLC v. Rocketfuel Blockchain, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 November 2022
• Docket Number: INDEX No. 652887/2022,MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 34043 (U)
• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Parties: SCAROLA ZUBATOV & SCHAFFZIN PLLC, Plaintiff, v. ROCKETFUEL BLOCKCHAIN, INC., ROCKETFUEL BLOCKCHAIN COMPANY Defendant.

2022 NY Slip Op 34043(U)

SCAROLA ZUBATOV & SCHAFFZIN PLLC, Plaintiff, v. ROCKETFUEL BLOCKCHAIN, INC., ROCKETFUEL BLOCKCHAIN COMPANY Defendant.

INDEX No. 652887/2022, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

Supreme Court, New York County

November 28, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

MOTION DATE 11/22/2022

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

HON ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT.

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of compliant is denied.

Background

Plaintiff brings this case for unpaid legal fees that were allegedly received and retained for months without objection. It argues that defendants acknowledged the debt owed in the amount of $119,846.24.

In opposition, defendants contend that the instruments upon which plaintiff relies for the relief sought are two invoices and that these cannot serve as the basis for relief under CPLR 3213. They attach affidavits from the Chief Financial Officer (NYSCEF Doc. No. 14) and their California counsel (NYSCEF Doc. No. 15) in support of the claim that defendants objected to the invoices.

In reply, plaintiff contends that the objections raised by defendants relate to bills from six months prior to the invoices at issue in this case.

Discussion

"The prototypical example of an instrument within the ambit of [CPLR 3213] is of course a negotiable instrument for the payment of money-an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain, signed by the maker and due on demand or at a definite time. CPLR 3213 is generally used to enforce some variety of commercial paper in which the party to be charged has formally and explicitly acknowledged an indebtedness, so that a prima facie case would be made out by the instrument and a failure to make the payments called for by its terms. A document does not qualify for CPLR 3213 treatment if the court must consult other materials besides the bare document and proof of nonpayment, or if it must make a more than de minimis deviation from the face of the document" (PDL Biopharma, Inc. v Wohlstadter, 147 A.D.3d 494 494-95, 47 N.Y.S.3d 25 [1st Dept 2017] [internal quotations and citations omitted]).

The Court finds that the invoices do not constitute an instrument for the payment of money only. Invoices from a lawyer to a client are not a client's unconditional promises to pay a sum certain entitled to CPLR 3213 treatment. "The invoices do not qualify for CPLR 3213 relief because it is necessary to consult extrinsic evidence aside from the invoices and proof of nonpayment in order for plaintiff to establish its entitlement to summary judgment on its account stated claim" (Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC v J&J Sports Agency, LLC, 181 A.D.3d 430, 430, 116 N.Y.S.3d 902 (Mem)[1st Dept 2020]). That does not mean that eventually, summary judgment on liability or damages or both may be granted - it just means that a lawyer's bills are not magically transformed into a check or promissory note or other instrument for the...