Feldman v. Mount

Feldman v Mount 2025 NY Slip Op 30382(U) January 30, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 153452/2024 Judge: Mary V. Rosado 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.

INDEX NO. 153452/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice ---------------------------------X INDEX NO. 153452/2024 JACOB FELDMAN, MOTION DATE 08/20/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -

TYLER MOUNT, TYLER MOUNT VENTURES, LLC,HENRY DECISION + ORDER ON STREET CREATIVE, LLC MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

Upon the foregoing documents, and after a final submission date of November 19, 2024,

Defendants Tyler Mount, Tyler Mount Ventures, LLC, and Henry Street Creative LLC's

(collectively "Defendants") motion to dismiss 1 Plaintiff Jacob Feldman's ("Plaintiff') Complaint

is granted in part and denied in part. 2

I. Background

In July of 2022, Plaintiff and several others formed Immersive Management and Services,

LLC ("IMS") to operate the newly launched "ArtsDistrict" venue in Brooklyn, New York. Tyler

Mount Ventures, LLC ("TMV") contracted with IMS to provide digital marketing services for the

show LIMITLESS AI at ArtsDistrict. However, by September of 2022 IMS suspended operation

of the show due to low ticket sales. By September of 2023, IMS and ArtsDistrict were forced into

1 In their notice of motion, Defendants fail to state under what provision of CPLR 3211 they seek dismissal. 2 Although the final submission date was November 19, 2024, and Plaintiff did not file opposition until December 2, 2024, this Court will consider the opposition papers in the interest of resolving the motion on the merits and because counsel for Plaintiff submitted a detailed affidavit explaining the late opposition. 153452/2024 FELDMAN, JACOB vs. MOUNT, TYLER ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 001

[* 1] 1 of 5

INDEX NO. 153452/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025

bankruptcy. Defendants asserted IMS owed them over $180,000 in unpaid invoices and Henry

Street Creative LLC obtained a default judgment against IMS.

In addition to obtaining default judgment against IMS, Mr. Mount began an online smear

campaign against Plaintiff individually, claiming that Plaintiff conspired to keep using equipment

without payment, engaged in fraud, alleging IMS and ArtsDistrict were part of a "clandestine

scheme to siphon money," and labelling Plaintiff as an "unresponsive debtor." Mr. Mount also

allegedly shared these messages with Plaintiff's alma maters, Plaintifrs contacts on Facebook,

and even allegedly sent the message to Plaintiff's children's teacher. Mr. Mount has allegedly sent

several e-mails to Plaintiff's employer, Nexus Academics, and Nexus Academics' clients,

claiming that he obtained a default judgment personally against Plaintiff. Now, Plaintiff sues for

defamation per se, tortious interference with existing contracts and tortious interference with

prospective economic advantage, invasion of privacy and internet harassment.

II. Discussion

A. Defamation

In support of his motion to dismiss, Defendants argue the alleged statements are true and

therefore non-actionable. However, this in and of itself is false. The debt owed Defendants is not

Plaintiff's debt but a debt belonging to IMS, which is purportedly in bankruptcy, and who Henry

Street Creative LLC obtained a default judgment against. Defendants cannot and have not shown

that Plaintiff as an individual owed Defendants a debt, and therefore Defendants' online campaign

to label Plaintiff an "unresponsive debtor" may serve as a basis for defamation. Moreover, alleging

that Plaintiff engaged in a fraudulent "clandestine scheme to siphon money" or that he conspired

to continue using equipment without making payments are the types of statement to give rise to a

153452/2024 FELDMAN, JACOB vs. MOUNT, TYLER ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 001

INDEX NO. 153452/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025

INDEX NO. 153452/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025

INDEX NO. 153452/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025

Footnotes

[2] of 5 [* 2] defamation per se claim (see Nolan v State, 158 AD3d 186, 195 [1st Dept 2018] [statements that tend to injure the plaintiff in her trade, business or profession constitute defamation per se ]). Although Defendants argue "the remainder of the alleged statements are opinion" they fail to identify with particularity any of the alleged statements they argue constitute opinion. Defendants cannot obtain dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint by simply throwing out defenses to defamation without identifying the allegations in the complaint to which those defenses apply. In any event, to the extent the alleged statements may be considered opinions, this Court finds they are actionable "mixed opinions" since it is implied the opinions are based upon facts unknown to the readers of those statements (Glazier v Harris, 99 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2012] citing Guerrero v Carva, l 0 AD3d 105 [1st Dept 2004 ]). Finally, Defendant's argument that Plaintiff has not pled harm or damages is without merit. Statements constituting defamation per se, do not require pleading special damages - there must only be an allegation that addresses injury to reputation (Liberman v Ge/stein, 80 NY2d 429 [1992]). Here, Plaintiff has pled sufficient allegations regarding injury to his reputation. B. Tortious Interference The sole basis by which Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs tortious interference claim is that it is "true" that Defendants obtained a default judgment against Plaintiff. However, as previously discussed, and as made clear by Court documents, the default judgment was not against Plaintiff but was solely against IMS (see NYSCEF Doc. 9). 3 Therefore, dismissal of the tortious interference claim is denied. 3 Also, the only judgment creditor is Henry Street Creative LLC, not Defendants Tyler Mount or Tyler Mount Venturcs LLC. 153452/2024 FELDMAN, JACOB vs. MOUNT, TYLER ET AL Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 001

[3] of 5 [* 3] C. Invasion of Privacy and Internet Harassment Defendants do not even address Plaintiffs invasion of privacy and internet harassment claims in their motion and therefore the Court need not address dismissal of these claims. D. Dismissal of Corporate Defendants Since all the alleged statements are attributed solely to Defendant Tyler Mount in his individual capacity, and not Defendants Tyler Mount Ventures, LLC and Henry Street Creative LLC, the Complaint is dismissed as to these Defendants. There are no specific or particularized allegations asserted against the corporate defendants. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Defendants Tyler Mount, Tyler Mount Ventures, LLC, and Henry Street Creative LLC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jacob Feldman's Complaint is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants' motion is granted solely to the extent that the Complaint as alleged against Tyler Mount Ventures, LLC, and Henry Street Creative LLC is dismissed; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants' motion is otherwise denied; and it is further ORDERED that within twenty days of entry of this Decision and Order, Defendant Tyler Mount shall serve an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint; and it is further ORDERED that the parties are directed to meet and confer, and on or before May 5, 2025, shall submit a proposed preliminary conference order to the Court via e-mail to SFC-Part33- Clerk@nycourts.gov. If the parties cannot agree to a proposed preliminary conference order, they shall appear for an in-person preliminary conference on May 7, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 442,

[60] Centre Street, New York, New York; and it is further 153452/2024 FELDMAN, JACOB vs. MOUNT, TYLER ET AL Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 001 4 of 5 [* 4] ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties via NYSCEF. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. 1/30/2025 DATE ARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED x NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTEO ~ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE 153452/2024 FELDMAN, JACOB vs. MOUNT, TYLER ET AL Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 001 [* 5] 5 of 5