McCrae v. Nurse — freecase.ai

Full text

McCrae v. Nurse

McCrae v Nurse 2025 NY Slip Op 31885(U) May 22, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 518321/2022 Judge: Carolyn E. Wade 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 05/27/2025 09:00 AM INDEX NO. 518321/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025

At an IAS Part 84 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201 on the ,v;J. · day of May, 2025

PRESENT: Hon Carolyn E. Wade, J.S.C

SUPREME COU T OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTYOF GS .. --------------------- -----------------------------------------X WONITAMcC

Plaintiff, Index No.: 518321/2022 -against-

CARL M. NURS , BEFUT GLOBAL INC., AZAD ALI, MONEY ON DE,n.LJ'"lu.~i.J INC., ANDREW BLACK ESQ. 1 GELB & BLAC I PC., CARL C. BELGRAVE, ESQ.,

Defendants. --------------------- -----------------------------------------·X

Plaintiff ONITA MCRAE'S (hereinafter "PLAINTIFF") Motion for Summary

Judgment, Moti n Seq. 006 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 61-68), seeks an Order (1) pursuant to

CPLR §3212, gr ting summary judgement to PLAINTIFF for her cause of action for specific

performance, co spiracy to commit fraud, and damages for pain and suffering against

Defendants C M. NURSE, BEFUT GLOBAL INC., AZAD ALI, and MONEY ON

DEMAND INC., (hereinafter "DEFENDANTS"); (2) in the alternative, granting PLAINTIFF

the benefit of he bargain, which is the difference in the Contract Price and the current value

of the subject p operty, plus damages for pain and suffering against DEFENDANTS for

it fraud; (3) pursuant to CPLR § 3212, granting summary to PLAINTIFF

her cause of acti n for conspiracy to commit fraud and damages for pain and suffering against

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/27/2025 09:00 AM INDEX NO. 518321/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/28/2025

Footnotes

[1] of 5 [* 1] Defendant C C. BELGRAVE, ESQ., (hereinafter "BELGRAVE") and for an order referring BELG VE to the Grievance Committee for willful violation of the New York State Rules of P ofessional Conduct (22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 1200) Rule 1.5 (d)(S)(ii) and Rule 3.4 (a)(3); and ( ) granting PLAINTIFF such other and further relief this Court deems just, Defend BELGRAVE opposed PLAINTIFF'S Motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 69), respectfully req es ting that this Court deny PLAINTIFF'S Motion in its entirety and grant s the Court deems just and proper. STATEMENT OF FACTS This acti n arises out of an alleged residential contract of sale dated December 7, 2021 1 . (hereinafter "res dential contract of sale") for the subject premises known as 5313 Avenue H in Brooklyn, Ne~ York, 11234 (hereinafter "the subject premises") for the sum of seven hundred and thousand ($725,000.00) dollars. See Plaintiffs Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. PLAINT 1FF is the buyer in the residential contract of sale. Defendant Carl M. Nurse (hereinafter " SE") is the owner of Defendant Befut Global Inc. (hereinafter "BEFUT") and, together, SE/BEFUT are the sellers in the residential contract of sale. Id. PLAINTIFF ret ined by Defendant Andre Black, Esq./Gelb & Black P.C. (hereinafter "BLACK") to epresent her in the purchase of the premises. NURSE/BEFUT were represented by efendant Carl C. Belgrave, Esq., (hereinafter "BELGRAVE") 1• Id. 1Plaintiff alleges that B ACK selected BELGRAVE, an attorney at the same office address, to represent NURSE/BEFUT while BLACK represented P AINTIFF, creating a confllct of Interest, and aiding and abetting a fraudulent breach of the contract of sale, Id, at 30. 2

[2] of 5 [* 2] PLAINT! F alleges that she obtained a loan commitment approval from her bank and ent of twenty-one thousand, seven hundred and fifty ($21,750.00) dollars. PLAINTIFF f, er alleges that, although she was ready, willing, and able to perfonn her contractual obli ations, NURSE/BEFUT sold and/or transferred the property to Defendant Azad Ali, the o er of Defendant Money on Demand Inc. (hereinafter "ALI/MONEY") as "straw transferees" and "sham purchasers." Id. Addition Uy, PLAINTIFF alleges that ALI/MONEY is a neighbor and a friend to NURSE/BEFUT and had knowledge that a contract of sale was in place for the sale of the subject property. Id. ANALYSIS Upon a r ading of the foregoing papers, and all other papers and proceedings in this action, and after ral argument, PLAINTIFF'S Motion is decided as follows: Summ judgment is "a drastic remedy which should only be employed when there is no doubt as o the absence of triable issues." Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361, 363 [1974]. Further "summary judgment should be denied even when the existence of a factual issue is arguabl ." Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 398 [1957]. Addition lly, "[a] claim rooted in fraud must be pleaded with the requisite particularity under CPLR 30 6 (b)." Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]. "To sta e a cause of action sounding in fraud, a plaintiff must allege that '(I) the defendant made a representation or a material omission of fact which was false and the defendant knew o be false, (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to ,ely upon it1 (3) there was justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or 3

[3] of 5 [* 3] material omissio , and (4) injury."' McDonnell v. Bradley, 109 AD3d 592, 592-93 [2d Dept 2013], f action sounding in civil conspiracy cannot stand alone, but stands or falls with the underlyi g torts,'' Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp v. Scialpi, 94 AD3d 1067, I 069 [2d ermore, to recover for aiding and abetting fraud, the plaintiff must plead (1) underlying fraud, (2) knowledge of the fraud by the aider and abettor, and (3) substantial as istance by the aider and abettor in the achievement of the fraud (Fox Paine & Co,, LLCvlli uston Cas. Co., 153AD3d678, 679 [2dDept2017]. Here, the e are triable issues of fact as to whether Defendants' CARL M. NURSE, INC., AZAD ALI, MONEY ON DEMAND INC., ANDREW BLACK ESQ., and C C. BELGRAVE, ESQ, alleged conduct was sufficient to establish fraud, d abetting of fraud, against PLAINTIFF in the purchase of the subject property. F argues that "Defendant [BELGRAVE] represented the seller when he called defend [ALI/MONEY] and introduced him to a property that [he knew] was in contract and, as an attorney representing the seller, he unlawfully and illegally sold out the public trust . . . hen he diverted the sale of the subject property to defendant [ALI/MONEY] for a referral ommission ... " See PLAINTIFF'S Affinnation in Support 1 10 and 12 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 62). Converse y, BELGRAVE argues that he "would not call a third party to purchase a property which was already in contract." See BELGRAVE'S Affinnation in Opposition 1 4

[4] of 5 [* 4]

[20] (NYSCEF D c. No. 69), BELGRAVE further argues that he "was not a party to the sale transaction and nly became aware after the transfer had already been made." Id. at 123. As such, t ere are issues of fact to be determined by a jury. Accordin ly, it is hereby ORDERED that PLAINTIFF'S Motion for Summary This cons itutes the Decision and Order of the Court. ENTER Honorable Carolyn E. Wade, J.S.C. Hon. Carolyn E. Wade Supreme Court Ju$tioe _, :,ii.: ....... -=:.:, <.,n % c:i X ti) :c,,. -< 'Tin _o N ..J re: f"l'I~ )> O-< .- (") -- ... !Tl ::0 :,i;:. N 5 5 of 5 [* 5]