Bedessee v. Bedessee — freecase.ai

Full text

Bedessee v. Bedessee

Bedessee v Bedessee 2024 NY Slip Op 31154(U) April 4, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 507184/2022 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 04/04/2024 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 507184/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 195 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

SUPREME COURT OF ·THE STATE OF NEi'lf YORK COUNTY OF KI.NGS : CIVIL TERM.: COMMERCIAL PART 8 -- ------- ---- . --------- - -------------x NAWSHAD BEDESSEE·, Plaintiffs,_ .Decb=.don .a"rid order

..;. ag:ainst"""'

VERMAN BEDESSEE, RAYMAN BEDESSEE, INVOR BEDESSEE; BEDESSEE IMPORTS J:N.C., ANDRE.W BEDES'SEE ·CORP. , .J3-EOESSEE HOLDINGS. INC., BEDESSEE EAST-WEST INDIAN FOOD, INC. D/B/A BEDESSEE S,PORTING. GOODS__, and OTHER ··xyz C0RPQRAT.ION$. 1-10, the true names of. which are unknown to the Plaintiff, Aprii 4, 2024 De.f'endant; - - - - . --·---·--·------ -•------·--· .· - - - - - ·----· - .. X PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN MCiti.on Seq. #7

The plaintiff has moved seeking to dismiss numerous affirmative

defense,3 pursuant to CPl...R §:,3"²·11. The def.endants have opposed the

motion... Papers WE;).re s:ubmitt,ed by a.11 parties .arid after reviewing

all the arguments, this court now .makes th_e following

determination .

A.s recorded in prior orders, the plaintiff arid the de.f endants

ate all br'others and all -~fssume"d control of their father'··s

busint;?sses "i,lpon hi_s cie·ath in -2017. The. complaint allege.s._, among

other improprietie s, that defendant, Verman Bedessee the managing

member of the business, is divertin.g bu·-siness a.-sset.s to his othe_;r Wholly owned b.usine-sses anc:i tq pay personal expenses. The

compiaint further alleges the defendant utilizes employees of the

entities to work for his o:wn wholly owned compani·e;; the_,re_py ruining

the financial stability of the defenda_i1t entities. The complaint

alleges .causes· of action for a declaratory j udg.em:ent, an

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2024 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 507184/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 195 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

Footnotes

[1] of 4 [* 1] accounting, br: ea-ch of f i du,cia ry duty, . canst z,uct i ve trust-, conversion,._ corporate waste ~nd unjust enric)l.ment. The de.fendant answered and a·sserted various counter.claim s and affirmative defens·e$. The p-la..;intif-f .has now .moveq. seeking to dismiss, ·many o·f the affirmative defenses. As noted the motion is opposed. Conclu·sions· 'of Law It is well settled that upon a motion to dism;i.ss the coµrt must d.ete.r:rni1;1e, acceptirj.g the ·alleg_ atioris of -the plt?ading_· a-s true, whethe.r the party can succeed upon any reason,3.ble view of those facts (Davids v. State, 159 .A,:Ci3d "987, 74 NYS3d 28 8 [2d Dept., ..2.0i8 J ) • F.urtller., _all the allegations in the. pleading arer cie;emed true and all reasonable irt:ference;s may be drawn in favo-r of the p.arty that _asserted the ·pleai::ffng (Dunleavy v. Hilton Hat.l ·Apart:me_nts Co.; LLC, 14 AD3d 4.7 9, 789 NY.S2.d 16-4 [2d.. Dept., 2 005) ) . The second a.ffirmative defense merely states that "plaintiff is est,qpped "from asserting his c.laims"· (see,, Ans.we.r t"o ArnendE::1-d. Coril.plain:t and Ar"\'1./:mded .Coun:t;erclaim s, '![97 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 182_)), "Further, paragraphs 99· and 110 of the answer li·kewise. assert a·f firmative defens'es of estoppel. to assert a claim of equitaple estoppel th_e defendants must allege concer'riing plaintiff \\ ( 1) conduct which amounts to a fal.s.:.e repr.e-sent_a.ti on -or ¢oncealni.erit of material .f._acts; (2) interitiori. that such conduct will be act~o .llpo;n. by _the other .party; and (3) knowledge of the real facts. The party 2

[2] of 4 [* 2] asserting E?.st.oppel rn1.1st ·show witl1._ r.espect to himself"": (1) lack of .kp.owledge of the t,rue facts; (:2) reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped; and (3.) a prejudicial change in ·his position" (.§..§..§., ..Adams. v. Washington Group LLC., 11 Mis¢:3;d 10·_g3:_(A) ,. -819 NYS2d 6.46 [Supreme Court Kings County 2006]). The countettla.im s allege that the plaintiff Nawshad utilized his -:position with thtf oompany to the d.etrirnemt of the company an:d that he further ha-rrned tl;le company in n1,1merous ways ( ~ , Counterciaims . ':l[':1121-73 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 182]). While those allegatiorts. wi•11 be. s.ubject to: disc.every,. at th.is juncture th.e affirmative defenses. are v:~lid. °r'.Jext, the plaintiff seeks to dismiss the affirmative defense o·f ex turpi caus:a·. rion or.ittir actio which means essentially that the plaintiff .cannot purs,ue cla.:i.ms that arise from his own tOrtitius conduct and sim:Llarly, µnclean hands. Considering the -facts of t_his -case;-. thes.e- affirrnativ:.e defenses ·really al1~ge the same defense, namely that the plaintiff engaged in i:mpr()per conduct.and there.fore cannot :.benefit. frbin his wron:9do-irtg. There·fore, the mo+,"e c.ommonJ,.y kno.wn an¢ brqad ciefense o:E unclean ha_nds applies. Thus, the duplicative affirmative defense qf ex turpi causa no!1 oritur .actio• is he:re-by d.lswis$.ed. The next affirmative defense asserts the statute of frauds. There may be allegations, suojec.t to discove,ry, concerni_ng whether there is. .an unwritten a.9reement regarding the transfer of land_._ Therefore, this. def.ense may be relevant. If no such issue ar.ises J

[3] of 4 [* 3] in th;L.~- case the- plaintiff may mov:e agaj.n seeking this di·~rnis$· 9 L Likewise, th~ affi.;rmative defense .of statute of lirni tations may be relevant. Upon the conclusion of .all discovery the plaintiff may move ag_ain .s.eeking· its :qismi.ssal. Upon consent, the affirmative defenses related to the Dead -Man's ·-Statute,. c.onsttuctive trust and ."knowingly naming .improper partie:s- are hereby· dismissed. The motion seeking to dismiss the affirinati ve defenses of standing and forum rton conve.niens ·:is denied.- There are-: d:±spu:tes whether the plaintiffs are meinbe.rs of all ,;_he corporat_ions and forum non conveniens may be asserted as cfn af firm:ati ve de:fense. The rnoti•on see·kin_g to disrnis·S. the counter.claim s. conta-:Lned in paragraphs tl 2 and 114 regarding Bede s se:e Imp.arts Ltd .. , a non-party to the action is granted. ·The r.eq:.uest to dismis:s para:g:i:aph _113 regarding the faiiure to in.elude Beciess~e Impo:i:-ts Ltd., as an indispensable party is denied. l'he moti_ob seeking to dismiss _paragr_a_ph 115 which asserts that any a1legcitipn that has not been answered is denied is hereby dismissed. So ordered. ENTER: DAT-~D: j\prii 4 2024 Brooklyn N.Y. H9n. Leon Ruchelsman JSC 4

[4] of 4 ---------- ---------- -------- ············ ···--··-·-~ ---------- [* 4] ........