Smart-Fill Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. PersonalRx NYC LLC

Full text

Smart-Fill Mgmt. Group, Inc. v PersonalRx NYC LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 31973(U) June 4, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 500252/2024 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 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500252/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE ST:ATE OF NEW. YORK COUNTY OF KINGS :. CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8 -· ··- - - - - - . -·- - -·-· -·- - - -·--·-- - - - .-- -- - -- ---- ---- -·-x SMART-FILL MANAGEMENT GROU.P, INC.,. Plaint¹.ff, Decision and order

- against- Index Nq. 5002-52/2"024

PERSQNALRX NYC LLC, Def·en.:dant s , June· 4, 2·024 -.-----.--- .. ----------- .. ------------- ----.-x PRESEtfT: HON • LE◊t-J RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #³

The. plaintiff has moved pursuant to C_PLR §3212 seeking

s.ummary judgE;!rnen_:t. ori the- fir-st; t::hird and fou·rth causes o-f action

of the complaint. allegJrtg breach o:f cqntrac.t, acco:unt st:_a:ted a_nd

repleyin. ·The def endapt has opposed the motion. Fapers were

submi_tted by· the- parti_es· arid ·arguments held. After review.ing all

the arguments this court now makes_ the following determinatio n.

Th.e. plaintiff is a groµp purchasing org.anization (GPO:) that

procu.re·s favorable· pric·e:s for· its ntem:bers who .are phar1t1,acies. _On

November 1, 2023 the p],.13.intiff and defendant and non-party ABOC

.enter.ed int9 -an a_greement whereby the defendant would purc;has~.-

pharma.cy produ<::::tE? :from- f,BDC e.ach month .in the arrrount of $_300, 000.

According to ·the ciompl·.3:int, through Detember 1.3, 202"3 the

defendant owed $7.J9, 842. 76 -(see, V.e.rified Comp·laiht, '1[23 [NYSCEF

Doc. No. 2]). The complaint alleges that as of that date the rnor.iey was due· .and owing anc:i comrnern:::ed thi~ action.. The: pl;1i·ntiff

now move;.s seek.ipg sumrnar:y judgement the def.eridant owes the _am_ount_

stated. The plaintiff asserts there are no questions of fact

that amount is owed. The :ctefepda:q.t opposes the motio"n arguing

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500252/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024

Footnotes

[1] of 5 [* 1] there are questiort.s of fa.ct which.· t:,oreclo:se a· summar_y .o.~ti:::rrninatio. n at t.his time. Conclus~ons of taw Where the material facts at issue in a. case are in dispute s·µmrnary judgment carihot be g·ranted {Zuckerman v. City of N.ew York, 4 9 NYS2d 55·7, 427 NYS2.d 595 [ 1980] j • Getterall·Y., it .is fq.r the jury, th_e trier of fact to determine the legal cause o.f any injury, ho~iever; ·"'7here o·nly ·one conclusion ma-y be drawn t·rortl. the facts then the question of legal cause may be q.ecide.d by the trial court as a matter of law (Marino v .. Jamison, 189 AD3d 10-21, l36 NYS.3d J24 [ 2d Dept·.. , 2021) . It is well settled that. to succeed upon·~ claim of breach of contract the plaiqtiff. must ..e.stablish the existence of a contract, the. plaint i.f f '·s pe rforman.ce, the de.f. endan t ' s pre a ch :and resulting damages (Harri$ v. :Seward Park Housing Corp., 79 AD3d ·4·25, ··913 NYS2d 161 [l8·t· Dept.:,·· 20],0 ]") . Further, as explained in Gianelli v. RE/MAX 0£ New York, 144 A,D3d 861, 41 NYS.3d 273 [2d Dept., 2016] r "a breach of contract cau.-se of action fails as a matte·r ·of l.;iw in t.he ap11rence o.t: any showfrig th.a.t a speciffi:: provision of the contract was breached" (id). Paragraph ..4 (b) of the $ina.rt-"-F;i.1":I,.. A.BOC Member Agreement states that "Member;: will :r;-,epay .$mart-Fill if Smart-Fill has paid ABDC on Member's behalf" (see, Agreement, <JI4(b) [NYSCE-F Doc, No. 2 [* 2] ........ -········· -------- --------

[2] of 5 -------- -------- ----- 42]). There is no dispute that Smart-Fil l paid ABDC on behalf of the defenda:nt and that therefore the defendant owes th.Eo money to the plaintiff . The defendant argues the agreement is not clear wher:i. payments are due. However, the agreement '$ summary-t able states that payments are due "semL-mon thly 11 (id). There is further nq dispute that 'semi---mon thly' mec1ns twice a month (see, Language T:i,ps, New York State Bar Journal, by Gertrude Block [June 2012]). Thus, there can be no dispute the defendant failed to make any payments, and surely failed to make two payments iri the month of November. Therefore , the defendant breached the agreement . Moreover, there is no evidence the plaintiff likewise breached the agreEoment . Further, Patagrap11 9.6 of the agreement 's exhibit states that "ABDC and Smart-Fil l will recover from Member all costs they incur, including reasonabl e attorneys fees, in connectio n with enforcing their rights under this Agreement " ( see, Exhibit to Agreement , '.ff.9. 6 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 42]). While the question of reasonable attorney' s fees may be pursued there are no questions of fact the de£en:dant breached the agreement by failing to make any payments and that the plaintiff is entitled't o attorney' s fees. Next, an account stated ''is an agreement , express cir implied; between the parties to an account based upon prior transactio ns betwe,en them with respect to the correctne ss of account items and a specif.ic balance due on them" (see, Episcopal 3

[3] of 5 [* 3] Health -Services, Inc. v. Porn. Recoveries. Inc~.-( 138 AD3d 9.17, 3.1 NYS3d 113 [2d Dept., 2016]) ._ A cause of action for account stated presents \'a·n alte·rnative theory of liability to recover the ~a:r:ne damages. allegedly sb.s.tain.:.ed as· a res·ult of the breach . bf contract" (A. Morttilli Plumbing & Heating Gorp., 90 AD3d 9 61, 935 .·N"¥S2d 6-.47 [2-d De.p:t., 2-011]). The court has already granted the ·motion seeking summary -j udg~m~nt on :a breach o_f contract _olaim. Thus, there is rib basis for a duplicative claim fo.r account stat~d. Th_erefo;r;~, the moti_o.n see·kir1,g .summary judgement 6:ri thi·s cause ot action is denied~ Lastly, to e·stablish a claim for replevin "a party must show {l.) that i t has a. $.upe:i=;Lor pO,$-~ess-ory right to the chattel, a,nd (2) that it made a demand for :possession of the. chattel from the def..eridant;, ( s:ee, Dougias v. Ha·rry iii. ·Abrams Inc~-; _20l-B WL i40661.$ [S.D-.N.Y_. 2018]).. :t-n this case_, repl.evin is sought concerning the goods delivered. There has been no substantive ·"opposition raising any questions ·.o.f fact in 1:.his r;_$ga:rd. -There.fore, the mot.ion se.eking summa.ry j udgernent on the repleviri cause· of action is granted. ·Thus, the motion seeking summary ju:dg,ei:nent o.r~ the breach of contract clairn and the repleyin cla.irn is granted. The precise ,3.m.ount o.t atto.rney'-~ fees to which the plaintiff .is en.titled shall be- decidec,l. at a hea.ti.ng before a judi.Gial hearing off.ice:r. The parties wili be notified of the date and time of su'ch 4

[4] of 5 [* 4] hearing. So ordered. ENTER: DATED: June 4, 2024 Brooklyn N,Y. Hon. Leon Ruchelsrnan JSC

[5] of 5 [* 5]