Roytman v. Gluzman

Roytman v Gluzman 2024 NY Slip Op 33870(U) October 29, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 505903/2024 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2024 01:26 PM INDEX NO. 505903/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8 -------. -.-----------·-- . ------·-.. ---- .--. ·. ·X MIKHAIL ROYTMAN and ANATOLY VOS.KOBOYNIK, Plaintiffs, Decision and order - against - Inclex No. 505903/2024 SUZANNA GLUZMAN, Defendant, October 29, 2024 ·--'---: ------.·· --- .--. -------: -- .- .-·---- .-- ·x.

PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #1 & #2

The defendant has moved pursuant to CPLR .§3211 seeking to dismiss the complaint for the failure to allege any causes of action. The plaintiff has cross-moved seeking to amend the complaint. The motions have been opposed respectively. Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments were held. After revi.ewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determination..

According to the complaint, the two plaintiffs owned fifty percent and the defendant owned fifty percent of a pb.armacy located at 1604 Avenue M in Kings County. In late 2022 the defendant, the supervising pharmacist informed the plaintiffs she no longer wished td work at the pharmacy. The plaintiffs, who are not pharmacists, hired non-party Miehe.le Shulman as the supervising pharmacist. Thtis, ori: January 25, 2023 Shulma;n and piaintiff Roytmc:m as manager of the pharmacy e.ntered int<:> an employment agreement. Further, the three owrt.ers and .Shulman ente.red into a Stock Purchase Agreement. The agrE!ement provides .that the pha.rmacy corporation copsists of 200 shares an:d that .20%

The complaint alleges that Gluzman refused to sell her shares to Shulman. The first Cause of action alleges breach of contract and further seeks specific performa:nce, since withdrawn, requiring Gluzman to sell 20 shares to Shulman. The second cause of action alleges a breach of fiduciary duty. The third cause of action alleges a: breach of the covenant of good faith a:ndfair dealing, The defendant has now moved se_eking to dismiss the complaint on the grounds it fails to allege any Cause of action.

As noted, the motion is opposed.

Conclusions of Law It is well settled that upon a motion to dismiss the court must determine, accepting the allegations of' the complaint a:s true, whethe·r the party cah succeed upon any reasonable view of those. facts ( Perez v., Y & M Transportation Corporation:, 219 AD3d 1449, 196 NYS3d 145 [2d Dept., 2023J.). Further; all the allegations in the complaint are deemed true and all reasonable inferences rrta:y be drawn in favor of the plaintiff (Archival Inc., v .. 177 Rea!tY C6rb., 220 AD3d 909, 1S8 NYS2d 567 [2d D~pt., 2023'] i, Whethe.r the complaint will lc:l.ter survive a motion fOr surnmary judgment; or whether the plairtti,ff will ultimately be

It is well settled that to succeed upon a claim of breach of contract the plaintiff must establish the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance, the defendant's breach and resulting damages (Harris v. Seward Park Housing Corp., 79 AD3d 425, 913 NYS2d 161 [Pt Dept., 2010]). Therefore, where a plaintiff cannot demonstrate any damages were suffered the Complaint fails to adequately ctllege any breach of contract c1aim (see, Tillage Commodities Fund L.P., v. SS&C Technologies Inc., 151 AD3d 607, 5-8 NYS3d 28 [1st Dept., 20l7] ) . Again, in Milan Music Inc .• v. Emmel ComtnU:hications Booking Inc., 37 AD3d 206, 829 NYS2d 4 85 [ 1 st Dept., 2 007] cite,d ~y defendant the court stated that "without a clear demonstration of damages; there can be no claim for breach of contract" (id). However, the Second Department, in Perry v. McMahan, 164 AD3d 1488, 84 J:s!YS3d 508 [2d Dept., 2018] held that "in breach of contract actions, actual damages are hot an essential ,element, and nominal damages are 1cecoverable to vindicate contract x:ights" {id} . Again, in AB Oil Se.rvices Ltd., v. TCE. Irisura:nce Services Inc., 188. AD3d 6-24, 133 NYS3d 638 [2d Dept., 2021] the .court held a cause of action for b.reach o.'f contract should not be disrniss.ed where no actuai

Next; to succeed on a claim for breach of a fiduciary dutyi a party must establish the existence of the following three elements: (1) a fiduciary·relationship existed between plaintiff ahd defendant, (2) misconduct arid (3) damages that were directly caused by the misconduct (Kurtzman v Bergstol, 40 AD3d 588, 835 NYS2d 644, 646 [2d Dept., 2007L ~ , Birnbaum v. Birnbaum, 73 NY2d 46li 541 NYS2d 746 [1989]}. It is true that when a claim for breach-of a fiduciary duty is merely duplicative of a breach of contract claim where they are based on the same facts and seek the same damage then the breach of fiduciary claim cannot stand (Pacella v, Town of Newburgh Volunteer Ambulance Corps. Inc,., 164 AD3ci 80:9, 83 NYS3d 24 6 [ 2d Dept., 2018]) . Thus, any breach of fiduciary duty based upon the defendant's failure to sell the shares pursuant to the agreement is surely duplicative. However, the other allegations of inter.feren:ce with the operations of the business are different than the breach of contract allegations and can support cla;im$ for the breach of a fiduqiary duty.

Consequently, the motion seeking to dismiss the second cause of. action is denied.

Next, the third and last cause of action asserts a claim for the breach bf the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is well settled that a cause of action is premised upon parties to a contract exercising good faith while perforrning the terms of an agreement (Van Valkenburqh Nooqer & Neville v. Hayden Publishing Cd., 30 NY2d 34, 330 NYS2d 329 [1972]). However, that cause. of action i-s not applicable when it is duplicative of a breach of contract claim (P. S. Finance LLC v. Eureka Woodworks Inc., 214 AD3d 1, 184 AD3d 114 [2d Dept., 2-023]).

This claim is entirely duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. Consequently, tl1.e motion seeking to dismiss this cause o.f action is granted.

The plaintiff 11as moved seeking to amend the complaint, however, did not actually propose any specific amendments and merely sought amendments in the abstract. The court cannot grant any s.uch amendments thaf. are not clearly defined. Therefore, the m.otion seeking to amend the complaint is denied at this time without prejudice.

So ordered.

ENTER: DATED..: 0.ctober29, 202.4 ~ Br6ok1yri N.Y. Hbn. Le6ri Ruchelsrnan JSG