Sinay v. Amin — freecase.ai

Full text

Sinay v. Amin

Sinay v Amin 2024 NY Slip Op 31579(U) May 2, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 526794/2023 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 05/02/2024 12:33 PM INDEX NO. 526794/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF "NEW YORK CbUNTY OF KINGS , CIVIt TERM: COMMERClAt 8 . ·. --------. ------------ -- ·-· .--------------- -.x LAZAR SINAY a.rid NA·FTUL-I HOLLENDER,. Pl.aintiffs Decision· ahd order

- ag'a:.inst - Index N-o. 52:6"7-9 4 / 2"0 2"_3

GHASSAN AMIN_, Def e·nctan t ,. and Mc1y 2, 2024 _R&F LiM'.OOSINE INC_.,. Nominal De·fenq:ant; ---- -------- ------ ------- ---~. -----x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUC.HELSMAN Motion -S-eq. ll #² & #:.³

T_he plairttiff s have moved twice seeking .a determination the

defendant violated an earlier orde-r of the coµrt restrain.ing th"e

defendant from interferi.ng with tn~- plaintiff's securing automobile insurance and for imposing sanpt,ions. The defendani

oppose.s the· -motions arguing the o-rigina;l order to. show cause

should not .h~ve heen signed and no sanctions are app·ropriate.

Papers were submitted by the partie-S and arguments held.- After

:r~viewi.ng al'l the arguments_. this col,lrt ti:0.w inake's the follm-ting

ctetermirtatio. n ..

Ac,cording to the verified complaint the plaintiffs own

·thirt-y.,-two 'for hire' vehicles. th&t are regi~te.red with tl,e New

York City Taxi and Limousine Contrnission. In .2017 the plaintiff

and defendant .entered· into some. sort -o_f arri;l.I).gl'::!ment whereby the

vehicles,. .owne.d- by t,he plaintiff, would be covere.d under

ciutomobile insµrance policies secured by de.fendant' s co-mpany R&.F

Limousine Inc-. The verifi-.ed complaint fur,:t. her alleges that the

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 12:33 PM INDEX NO. 526794/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024

Footnotes

[1] of 5 [* 1] plaintiff became the majority owner o:f the entity and in turn paid the defenciant $200 for- each vehicle operated under R&F Limousine Inc. a'nd Obtained licenses, known as diamonds, and registered those diamonds under R&F Limousine Inc. The plaintiff paid for all the expenses of the vehicles ihcludirtg insurance, registration, and necessary corporation fees. The relationship d'eteriorated and the defendant sought and still seeks to terrnin'3.te the relationship. Th.us, he attempted to facilitate the cancell,ation of the automobile insurance policies for all the vehicles unless he was paid additional funds. The plaintiff commenced this lawsuit and obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's ability to sec:ure proper insurance for all the vehicles. These motions haye been filed alleging the defendant violated the injunction and seeks sanctions. The defehdant opposes the motions arguing no partnership or joint venture was ever established between the parties and consequently the plaintiff has ri.o authority to' impose any conditions on the defendant's business. Conclusions of Law A join:t venture is "an association of two or more persons to carry out a single business enterprise for profit, for which purpose they combine their property, money, effects, skill and knoitledge" (Williams v. Forbes, 17 5 AD2d 125, 571 NYS2d 818 [2d 2

[2] of 5 [* 2] bept., 15191]). Tb$ ele·ments of a j_oint v·enture ar~: "·an agreement manifesting the intent Q.f the _parties to be associated as joint venturers, a contributio.ri by the coventti,rers to the j oin:t _ond~rt,aking (i.e .., a combination o.f property, ·financial resou,rces, effort, skill or knowledge), some degree of joint ·proprietorsh ip and contr:ol over the en:te·rprise; and a pr:ovision . .for the sha-rin:g of prof;Lts an_d los 9.e 9 " (Kaufman v. Torkan,. 51 AD3d 977, 859 NYS2d 253 [2d Dept., 2008]). Thus, a joint venture cannot. be created without a '"mutual promise or trnd~r:takin_g to share the bµrden o.f the loss_,~s. of the a1.1eged enterprise" (Maware v. Landau, 130 A03d 186, 15 NXS3d 12D [2d Dept~, 2015]). In thi·s- case· while_ ·there ma:y ·not be· a jo-in.t ve_r:1-ture· sinc~- there is no indication theparties agreed to share in losses, "there- can be. no dispute that some .sort of business r.elationshi.p was established between the p-arties. Thus, the def.en.d~n.t admits that he· "agreed with t,,1r.. Sinay that .he could have his vehicles covered by R -& F L·imousine Irie. ' s insurance po.licy op a year-py-year bas:i,s, .. provided that he paid .. all expense's relati..ng to his vehicles; including in:::iuri3cnce premiums, -registration s, -and ot:he~ e-xpens,es. Tn ex.change f-or p.e.rmitting him to ·have his vehicles covered by R & F Li:tnousirie Inc.' s insurance policy, Mr. Sina_y agreed to p;:;iy me_ $2:Q_-_Q_. 00 .per vehicle included in the policy" (see," Affirmati:o.n: of Ghassan At"nin, 'Jr'lI6, 7 :[NYSCEF Doc; J\lo. 52]) . Amin further indicates that he longe·r wishes to· 'maintain 3

[3] of 5 [* 3] this relationship , which is .surely 'his prerogativi;.. Tncieed, Ami.ti insist.s he has the righ,t to terminate the relationship at will. While that maybe true, there is no dispute the vehicles belong to the plaintiff... Thus-~ arty termination of the: arr.ange~ent cannot damage the plaintiff's abili:t:y to continue to operate its bus-iness. Thus, Amin .has not prese·n,ted ali.y rea-son why the ·plaintiff cannot -·continue to operate. its business while t.p_e parties negotiate a termination of their relationship . Ih this c-ase 'the vehicles .are owned by· the plaintiff but are. registered under R&F Limousine Inc.. Thi;l.t anom!3,ly is the crux of the comple:x:ity regarding the injunction. Further·, the verif:t"e·-ct complaint as··serts ·that ""TLC rules a·nct r·e·gulations d..o not p·ermi t Plaintiffs to transfer the Diamond.9: for the Vehicle·s to Flaintiffs' Companies" .(:see, Verif·i-.ed Complaint, 9[99 [NYS.CEF Doc. ·No. SJ). That reality_ is thus one· fact.or to be considered as the parties negotiate the va_lue of any termination. However, · as ~.lready noted, the defehdant'·-s met.hod of .an ace.eler:·ation of c1ny terrhinat:Lon by preventing th_e insur.ance to be placed in the vehicle·s unfa.irly encroaches upon ·the plainti££' s busines-s operatio,ns. Amin argues that any injunction harms his ability to cond~ct his· business. First, there· is _nq evidence substantiatin g that dubious a~serti.qn. More i:mport9,ntly_~ the injunction really o_nly cohce,rned the lnsurance coverage for the policies. That matter 4

[4] of 5 [* 4] has aTr.eady· ·concll,;l.ded, r_enderi-ng much of the r.elief sought as rnoot. '.-I'here.:t.ore, the motion seeking any. sanctions is denied. The opposition seeking to rem·ove any injunctioon is denied as well. As th.e parties .ne-gotiat~ an end -_t-q their relation.ship neither party can be forced to cease its business operations. so ordered. ENTER: DATED: May 2, 2024 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon .. JSC

[5] of 5 [* 5]