Yorizzo v. Maplecorp, LLC
| Docket Number | Index No. 70216/2017,Motion Sequence Nos. 6,7 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 2021 |
| Parties | JACK YORIZZO, RONALD ELETTO, JALO REALTY, INC. and MAPLEWOOD COURT, INC., Plaintiffs, v. MAPLECORP, LLC, ROBERT VALENTI, AMELIA VALENTI and 1906-08 AMETHYST CONSTRUCTION CORP., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
DECISION & ORDER
The following papers (NYSCEF document nos. 118-195) were read on (1) the motion by the defendants for an order: (a) pursuant to CPLR 3126, precluding plaintiffs from offering any evidence on the issue of the costs to repair and complete construction on the condominium units and/or striking plaintiffs' complaint for spoilation of evidence; (b) pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting defendants' summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim for costs associated with additional financing as barred by the principle of accord and satisfaction; and (c) pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting the individually named defendants, Robert Valenti and Amelia Valenti, summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserts a cause of action against them (sequence no. 6); and (2) the motion by the plaintiffs for an order: (a) pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting plaintiffs' summary judgment for an accounting, and compelling and directing defendants to account so that a full and accurate tax filing can be made to the IRS, New York State Department of Finance, and any other taxing authority; (b) severing and bifurcating the trial as to plaintiffs' damages which pertain to tax liabilities, penalties, assessments, fines and levies assessed by the IRS, New York State Department of Finance, and any other taxing authority; (c) granting plaintiffs leave to conduct further discovery on the issue of damages which pertain to tax liabilities or, in the alternative, for an order, severing and removing said claims from the trial calendar and remanding for further proceedings; (d) declaring that all of the rights and obligations of the parties as set forth in the Joint Venture Agreement dated January 30, 2014, remain in full force and effect and are in no way amended, altered, superseded changed, by any and all subsequent, contracts of the parties including, but not limited to the September 30, 2016 Agreement, the October 21, 2016 Agreement, and the January 13, 2017 Deed of Conveyance; and (e) granting plaintiffs' summary judgment over and against defendants' Amethyst Construction Corp, and Maplecorp, LLC, for plaintiffs' claimed damages for all costs associated with plaintiffs' additional financing and expenditures made.[1]
Notice of Motion-Affirmation-Affidavits (2)-Exhibits (A-Z)
Affirmation in Opposition-Affidavits (2)-Exhibits (A-E; A-D)-Memo of Law
Reply Affirmation-Exhibit (A)
Notice of Motion-Affirmation-Exhibits (A-E)-Affidavit (and corrected)-Exhibits (A-I)-Memo of Law
Affirmation in Opposition-Affidavit-Exhibits (A-F)
Reply Affirmation-Exhibit (A)-Memo of Law-Affidavit-Exhibits (A-B)
Upon reading the foregoing papers, it is
ORDERED the motion by the defendants is denied (sequence no. 6); and it is further
ORDERED the motion by the plaintiffs is denied (sequence no. 7); and it is further
ORDERED this matter is hereby referred to the Settlement Conference Part for a settlement conference. Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Clerk of the Settlement Conference Part shall notify the parties of the date, time, and method of the settlement conference.
The plaintiff, Maplewood Court, Inc. (Maplewood), was organized pursuant to a joint venture agreement to develop and build a ten-unit condominium project (Project). Pursuant to the joint venture agreement, Maplewood is equally owned by the plaintiff, Jalo Realty, Inc. (Jalo), and the defendant, 1906-08 Amethyst Construction Corp. (Amethyst). The owners of Jalo are the plaintiffs, Jack Yorizzo and Ronald Eletto. The owners of Amethyst are the defendants, Robert Valenti and Amelia Valenti.
As part of the joint venture, plaintiffs agreed to covey certain parcels of land owned by Jalo located at 83, 85, and 87 Maple Street, Scarsdale (Town of Eastchester) and Amethyst agreed to construct the condominium units and associated site improvements. Amethyst also agreed to contribute $950,083.40 for its interest in the project which was placed into a joint bank account with Country Bank to be utilized to finance the construction of the Project.
A number of problems arose during the development and construction of the Project prompting the present litigation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their obligations under the joint venture agreement by failing to complete the job in a workmanlike manner in accordance with industry standards, causing delays to the project by making fraudulent misrepresentations to the Attorney General, intentionally deviating from the products and material as specified by the plans resulting in defendants' monetary gain, exceeding the construction budget, and/or failing to contribute the additional financing needed to complete the job, and converting funds from the joint account.
Plaintiffs seek damages including costs to repair the defective and uncompleted work on the Project; the differential in the cost of the materials used as opposed to the cost of the materials called for by the joint agreement specifications; costs associated with the additional financing including principal and interest; additional carrying costs caused by defendants' unworkmanlike construction, deviation from the approved plans, and fraudulent misrepresentations to the Attorney General; tax penalties incurred by plaintiffs as a result of defendants' refusal to provide an accounting of costs and expenses which prevented plaintiffs from filing timely tax returns; all money withdrawn from the joint account by defendants which defendants cannot demonstrate was used on the Project, and the difference in the sales price between the units if constructed as per the plan specifications as opposed to the units as they were actually constructed.
The complaint sets forth thirteen causes of action against the various parties. By order dated and filed July 5,2018, the court granted a pre-answer motion by the defendants, Alan Singer and Welby Brady and Greenblatt, LLP, dismissing so much of the complaint- the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action-that asserted a cause of action against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (a) (7). The remaining causes of action asserted in the complaint allege breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, account stated, piercing the corporate veil, and conversion.
Issue was joined by defendants with service of an answer wherein defendants, inter alia, denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted two counterclaims for, in essence, breach of contract as a result of: (1) plaintiffs' alleged failure to arrange for, secure, and pay for all financing, mortgages, and loans necessary for the development and construction of the Project; and (2) plaintiffs' alleged failure to compensate defendants for labor, services, and materials provided to complete and install certain upgrades relating to the condominium units. By virtue of the foregoing breaches, defendants allege that they are owed $1,250,000.00. Thereafter, plaintiffs interposed a reply to the counterclaims wherein they denied knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained therein.
Following joinder of issue, and prior to the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for, among other things, an order granting the individually named defendants, Robert Valenti and Amelia Valenti, summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint that asserts a cause of action against them pursuant to CPLR 3212. By order dated December 21, 2018, and filed December 24, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion. The court found that:
Now, following the completion of discovery, plaintiffs and defendants each move for, among other things, an order granting summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 (sequence nos. 6 and 7).
Defendants move for an order: (a) precluding the plaintiffs from offering any evidence on the issue of the costs to repair and complete construction on the condominium units and/or striking plaintiffs' complaint for permitting spoliation of evidence; (b) granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim for costs associated with the additional financing including principal and interest as barred by the principle of accord and satisfaction; and (c) granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the individually named defendants, Robert Valenti and Amelia Valenti. For the reasons that follow, each branch of defendants' motion is denied.
The court first addresses that branch of defendants' motion seeking sanctions in accordance with CPLR 3126. CPLR 3126 provides, in relevant part, that:
To continue reading
Request your trial