Mantis Funding LLC v. Kasa Distrib. Corp.
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 50683(U) (Mantis Funding LLC v. Kasa Distrib. Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, Kings County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
| Mantis Funding LLC v Kasa Distrib. Corp. |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 50683(U) |
| Decided on April 29, 2025 |
| Supreme Court, Kings County |
| Rivera, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected in part through May 07, 2025; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on April 29, 2025
Mantis Funding LLC, Plaintiff,
against Kasa Distribution Corp. and Paul Lavoie, Defendants. |
Index No. 526163/2019
Attorney for Plaintiffs Mantis Funding LLC
Jeffrey Zachter, Esq.
2 University Plaza, Suite 205,
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Attorney for Defendants Kasa Distribution Corp. and Paul Lavoie
Amos Weinberg, Esq.
49 Somerset Dr. S.,
Great Neck, NY 11020 Francois A. Rivera, J.
SUPERSEDING DECISION & ORDER [FN1]
Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the notice of motion filed on August 22, 2024, under motion sequence number four, by Mantis Funding LLC (hereinafter the plaintiff) for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment in its favor on its causes of action for breach of contract, breach of a guaranty agreement and unjust enrichment asserted against Kasa Distribution Corp. (hereinafter the company defendant) and Paul Lavoie (hereinafter the individual defendant) (hereinafter collectively the defendants). The motion is opposed.
-Notice of Motion-Statement of Material Facts
-Affirmation in Support
-Affidavit in Support
Exhibits A-E
-Memorandum of law in oppositionExhibits A-B
-Counterstatement of material facts-Memorandum of law in reply BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2019, plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a summons and complaint with the Kings County Clerk's office (KCCO). On January 7, 2020, the defendants interposed and filed a joint answer with the KCCO.
The complaint alleges twenty-five allegations of fact in support of three denominated causes of action. The first is for breach of contract, the second is for breach of a guaranty agreement, and the third is for unjust enrichment.
The complaint alleges the following salient facts. On October 3, 2019, plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement (hereinafter the agreement) whereby plaintiff agreed to purchase all rights to company defendant's future receivables having an agreed upon value of $37,000.
Pursuant to the agreement, company defendant agreed to have one bank account approved by plaintiff (the "Bank Account") from which company defendant authorized plaintiff to make daily ACH withdrawals until $37,000 was fully paid to plaintiff.
In addition, the individual defendant agreed to guarantee all amounts owed to plaintiff from company defendant upon a breach in performance by company defendant. Plaintiff remitted the purchase price for the future receivables to company defendant as agreed. Initially, company defendant met its obligations under the agreement. Company defendant stopped making its payments to plaintiff and otherwise breached the agreement by intentionally impeding and preventing plaintiff from making the agreed upon ACH withdrawals from the Bank Account while conducting regular business operations.
Company defendant made payments totaling $5,040, leaving a balance of $31,960. In addition, pursuant to paragraph 6 in Appendix A of the agreement, company defendant incurred a blocked account fee in the amount of $2,500. Despite due demand, the company defendant has failed to pay the amounts due and owing by company defendant to plaintiff under the agreement. Additionally, the guarantor is responsible for all amounts incurred as a result of any default of the company defendant. There remains a balance due and owing to plaintiff on the agreement in the amount of $34,460, plus interest, costs, disbursements and attorney's fees.
LAW AND APPLICATION
It is well established that summary judgment may be granted only when no triable issue of fact exists (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The burden is upon the moving party to make a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence in admissible form demonstrating "the absence of any material issues of fact" (Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324; Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003]).
A failure to make that showing requires the denial of the summary judgment motion, regardless of the adequacy of the opposing papers (Ayotte v. Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1063 [1993]). If a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to [*2]produce evidentiary proof sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact (Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324).
Pursuant to CPLR 3212(b) a court will grant a motion for summary judgment upon a determination that the movant's papers justify holding, as a matter of law, "that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit." Further, all the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion (Marine Midland Bank v. Dino & Artie's Automatic Transmission Co., 168 AD2d 610 [2d Dept 1990])" (People ex rel. Spitzer v. Grasso, 50 AD3d 535, 544 [1st Dept 2008]).
In the case at bar, the only sworn testimony submitted by the plaintiff in support of the motion was an affirmation by its counsel, Jeffrey Zachter (hereinafter Zachter), and an affidavit of Kathleen Fink, plaintiff's director of risk management (hereinafter Fink). Zachter's affirmation demonstrated no personal knowledge of any of the transactional facts alleged in the complaint. An attorney's affirmation that is not based upon personal knowledge is of no probative or evidentiary significance (Nerayoff v Khorshad, 168 AD3d 866, 867 [2d Dept 2019], citing Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 35 AD3d 455, 456 [2d Dept 2006]).
Zachter's affirmation referred to the affidavit of Fink in further support of the motion. It is noted, however, that neither the complaint, the affirmation of Zachter or the affidavit of Fink alleged the specific amount of the purchase price for the company defendant's future receivables. There was also no documentary evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff paid any amount to the company defendants for its future receivables.
The essential elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant's breach of its contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach (see Cruz v Cruz, 213 AD3d 805 [2d Dept 2023]).
To prevail on the instant motion, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove each of these elements as a matter of law. The plaintiff provided no evidence demonstrating that it performed its part of the agreement by paying the defendants the agreed-upon purchase price. Consequently, the plaintiff did not meet its burden of demonstrating as a matter of law that the defendants breached the agreement.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 50683(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mantis-funding-llc-v-kasa-distrib-corp-nysupctkings-2025.