Full text
Nudelman v. Muller
Nudelman v Muller 2025 NY Slip Op 31825(U) May 19, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 530938-2024 Judge: Anne J. Swern 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 05/20/2025 10:03 AM INDEX NO. 530938/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2025
Atan IAS TrialTerm, Part 75 of the Supreme Court of the State ofNewYork, Kings County, at the Courthouse located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York on the 19th day ofMay2025 PRE SE NT: HON.ANNEJ. SWERN,.LS.C. . .
ALINA NUDELMAN, DECISION & ORDER Index No.: 530938-2024 Plaintiff(s), Calendar No.: 33 & 34 .,.against- Motion Seq'.: 001 & 002 TAMAS MULLER,
Defendant(s),
Recitation ofthefollowingpapers as requiredby CPLR 2219(a): Papers Numbered Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, Affinnation, Affidavits and Exhibits(NYSCEF 2.;6).; ........................................... ;............ ;.1,2
Defendanfs Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirtnation in Support and in Opposition toJ>Iaintiff's Motion,Affidavits and Exhibits (NYSCEF s~ 11) ........................3, 4
Plaintiff's Affirtnation in Opposition to Cross-'Motion and in Further Support of Motion (NYSCEF 14) ................................................. 5
Upon theforegoing papers and after oralargument, the decision andorder ofthe Court
is asfollows:
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Summons and Notice of Motion for Summary
.Judgment in ~i(!:u ofa Complaint Sl!eking a sum certain of $50,000.00. In support ofthe motion,
N1.,1debnan sub111ifted an affidavit stating that she and clefendant entered .into a Buyout Agreement
0114/22/2024 for her 42.5% ownership interest in. Golden Minds Pr¢p Ltc, a daycare center.
Defendant purchased her share for $100,000.00, payable in two installments. Defendant paid the
firstiristalhnent hut defaulted on the second payment that due .on 10/31/2024;
5309J812ti24 Pagel o/4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/20/2025 10:03 AM INDEX NO. 530938/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2025
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/20/2025 10:03 AM INDEX NO. 530938/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2025
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/20/2025 10:03 AM INDEX NO. 530938/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2025
Footnotes
[1] of 4 [* 1] .In opposiiion,,defendant served a cross-motion to dismiss this action based on plaintiff:-~•s f~ilure to first submit this .dispute. to mediation pursuant to.Article l3 -of the Operating_Agreement iigned. by. the parties nn: 9/3 0/'.2022. Additionally; defendant's affidavit stated that plaintiff . breached- ihe terms of the Buyout . Agreement by. failing to fulfill her specific• obligations under the contract; Therefore; summary . judgme:nt in lieu of the_ cmri:plaint. is una,vailable to plaintiff. In opposition to. the -crnss'."rriotim1, Nudelman did nqt submit ~ affidavit adw;essing the allegations that she did not fulfill her obligations under the Buyout Agreement. Both motions ar~-denied. $ummazy judgment may be. granted only when no trfable issue of fact exists- (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital~ 68 NY2d320 [1-986]) .. "Aparty moving-for sumµiary judginenfmust make a prim.a facie showing of 'entitlement tci judgment as·-a.rnatier of law, producing_ sufficient evide.:nce to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact. However,. a failure tp demonstrate a primafacie entitlc:ment to summary judgment motipn~ requires a denial of-the motion regardiess .of the adequacy ·of the opposing-.papers" (Ayoite v G~rvasi0., "81 NY2d 1062, 1063 [1993], citing Alvarez v Prospecl Hospital, 68 NY2<i 324). "Once. this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to_ produce. ev:r.dentiary proof in. admissible fonn sufficient to establish.. .the e~istence of materi~l jssues of fact that :require a trial for -resolutfoii• ( Giuffrida- ·v Citibank, 100 NY2d 72~ 81 [2003] andAlyarez v..Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 324). The CQµrfs only.role upon a motion forswnmary judgment-is to identify the existence-of triable issues; an.d not tP determine the merits of any such issues .(f'ega· V-Restarii. Construction C<Jrp., l8NY3d 499, ..505 [201.Z])or the. credibility of the movant~s version of events (see Xiang Fu He v Troon Manag~ment; .Inc., 34 NY3d 167, I 75 {20.19] [fotemal citations·-omitted]). The Coµrt.must view the evidence in theJight most-favorable to the nonmoving party, ·affording them $309.3812024" Pagelofi --------- [* 2] --------- --------- ---------
[2] of 4 ---·--·-·· ····-······ ··· tile benefit of a:U reaspnab.le .fnferences that can be. drawn from the evidence (se_e Negri. v Shop & -'Siop, 111c., 65NY2d 625.,.-626 [1985_]). The motion. should be denied where the facts-are in dispute, where different inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where the credibility of the witnessesJs ·in question (see Cameron v Ctty of Long Beach, 297 AD2d 773, 774 [2d Dept 2002]). i>laintiff established 'a:prima fade entitlement.Jo. sUilnn~ judgmenfthrpl;igh adIIIissible evideiic.e.in ihe form of an-affidavit _and tlie contract at issue (Giuffrida v Citibank; I 00 NY2d 8l) .. However,. defendant's affidavit rebutted tbisprimafacie ·entitlement to,j udgment by demQ11strating the existence of questions of fact concerning plaintiff's performance under the· BuyoutA.greement(see.Cameron v City a/Long Beach,_.297 AD2d 774). Plaintiff was not bound- to: first proceed to- mediation ·before filing the- :sunup:ons arid complaint. The mediation clause in the original Operating Agreement was superseded by ,rs of the Buyout Agreement that read.$ as follows: "Entire Agreement. lbis Agreement constitutes the entire agt~ement betwe~I;t the Partit;":s conce:rriiilg the su"pject. matter hereof ap.d· supersedes all prior 4.greemeni and understan_di.ng~. both written. an4·oral. "· (NYSCEF 5). Defendant shall interpose an answer within IO days :of service of this· Order with Notice ofEritty pursuant to CPLR § 321 f [a] [f]. Accordingly, itjs hereby ORDERED that. plai_ntiff's·motion for ~ummary Ju4gment in lieu of a: !,':ompb;rint is_ denied (MS 001 ), and .it. is furtlier ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss is denied (MS 002 ), and it is further 53093Bi2iJU Page.Jo/4
[3] of 4 [* 3] ORDERED that defendant shall interpose an answer pursuant to CPLR § 3211 [fl. This constitutes the decision and order ofthe Court. Hon. A e J. Swern, J.S.C. Da : 5/19/2025 For Clerks use only: MG _ _ MD _ _ Motion seq.# _ _ __ 53093812024 Page4of4
[4] of 4 [* 4]