Prosperum Capital Partners LLC v. Bottego Enters., Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 31385(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Prosperum Capital Partners LLC v Bottego Enters., Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 31385(U) April 19, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 529406/2022 Judge: Francois A. Rivera 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 04/19/2024 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 529406/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

.At an IAS Tenn, Part 52 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in cllld for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse; . .

at Civic Center, Brooklyn; New York; on the 19 th day of April 2024

HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA

PROSPERUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC DIBIA ARSENAL FUNDING;

Plaintiff, DECISION & ORDER Index No. 529406/2022 -against:':"

BOTTEGO ENTERPRISES, INC . , DBA PRECISION CRAFTSMAN, and ALFRED D BOTTEGO,

Defendants. ----------. -----· ------- .--- . ----. ------. ------· --------------------X Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the notice of motion filed on Nove1nber 14, 2023, by Prosperum Capital PartnersLLC D/B/A Arsenal Funding (heteinafter 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 ofa guarantee agree1nei1t and attomey's fees against Bottego Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Ptecision Craftsman (heteinaftet the business defendant), and Alfred Bottego (hereinafter the individual defendants) {collectively the defendants) for breachingtheagreements. The motion is unopposed.

-Notice of Motion. -Statement ofMatedal Facts "'.Affirination in .Support -Affidavitin Support Exhibits A~E -Memorandum of law in support

- 1] - -................. _._ .......................................... . 1 of 8 [* FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 529406/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

BACKGROUNI>

On October 11, 2022, plaintiff cmnmenced the instant action by filing a summons

and verified complaintwiththeKingsCounty Clerk's office (KCCO). On November 7,

2022, the defendants interposed and filed a joint verified answer with the KCCO.

The verified complaint alleges thirty-two. allegations of fact in support o fthree

denominated causes of action. The first is for breach of contract, the second is for breach

of a guarantee agreement, and the third is for attorney's fees based oil an alleged breach

of the agreement.

The verified complaint alleges the following salient facts. On or about June 16,

2022,the business defendant, in consideration of the sum of$25,000.00, sold, assigned; . . . .

and transferred to plaintiff nine {9%) percent ofits future sales proceeds, up to an

aggregate amount of $37,250.00. Pursuant to the aforesaidagreement,the business

defendant agreed tohave one bank accQllnt approved by plaintiff (hereinafter the "Bank

Account") from which the business defendant authorized plaintiff to debit 93/o of its daily

revenue until the amount of receivables of $37,250.00 was paid in fuU. Also, by the

agreement, Alfred Bottego executed a personal guarantee if the business defendant

defaulted ort the agreement.

On or aboutSepteinber 21, 2022, the business defendantstopped 1naking its

payments to plaintiff and otherwise breached the agreement by intentionally .impeding·

and preventin15 p'laintiff from making the agreed upon ACH withdrawals from the Bank

Account whHe conducting r~gular business operations and stiH in re.c¢ipt ofaccourits:-

i•ecei vab le.

2 of 8 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 529406/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

In total, the busin:ess defendant remitted the amount of $22,350.24 leaving a

balance.of $14,899.76 remaining due and owing. Additionally, pursuant to the

agreement, the business defendant incurred a "Default Fee" in the amount of $7,500.00, a

"Non.,.Sufficient Fees'' in the amount of $400.00artd a :'UCC Filing Fee'' in the amount

of$195.00 to cover the cost of filing UCC-1 financing statement fora total balance of

$22,994.76 due and owing to the plaintiff.

PursuanttO the terms ofthe agreement, defendants further owe plaintiff a total of

$3,724,94 representing reasonable attorney;s fees, or twenty five percent (25%), incurred

in the collection of the underlying balance. By reason of the foregoing:, the plaintiff has

been damagedin the sum of$22,994.76, together with attorney's fees of$3,724.94,

resulting in a sum total of$26,719.70. Despite due de1nand, the business defendant has

failed to pay the amounts due and owing'.

LAW AND APPLICATION

The defendants did not submit opposition to the instant motion. However; "[a]

summary judgment motion shoulcl not be granted merely because the party against whom

judgment is sought failed to submit papers in opposition to the motion, {i.e. 'defaulted')"

(Liberty TaxiMgt., Inc. v Gincherman, 32 AD3d 276,278 n [1st Dept2006], citing

Vermont Teddy Bear Co., v l-800Beargram Co., 373 F3d241, 244 [2d Cir2004J ["the

failure. to oppose a motion for summary judgment alone does not justify the granting of

swnmary judgnie11t. Insteac:l,the ... court rimst still assess whetl1.er th.e moving party ha~

fulfilled. its burden ofdeinonstrating that there is rto gei1uine issue of material fact and Its

entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law'']; see .Cugini v System Lumber Co., Inc., 1 il

3 of 8 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 529406/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

AD2dl 14, 115 [1st Dept 1985]).

It is well established that summary judgment may be granted only when no triable

issue of fact exists (Alvarez v ProspectHospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324-25 [1986]). The

burden is upon the moving party to make a prima facie showing thathe .or she is entitled

to summary judgment as a matterof law by presenting evidence in admissible form

demonstrating the absence of material facts (Giuffrida v Citibank, l 00 NY2d 72; 81

[2003]).

A failure.to make that showing requires the denial of the summaryjudgrnent

motion, regardless of the adequacy ofthe opposing papers (Ayottev Gervasio, 81 NY2d

1062, 1063 [1993]). Ifa prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the

opposing party to ptoduce evidentiary proof sufficientto 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 papersjustify holding, as a rnatter of law, that

there is no defense to the cause ofaction or that the-cause of action or defense has no

merit. Furthermore, all of 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 610,610 [2d Dept 1990]).

In the case at bar, the orily sworn testimony submitted by the plaintiff in support

ofthe mbtfrm was an affirmation of Jeffrey Pare11a, its counsel (hereinafter Parella:), and

an affidavit.ofMarlen Kruzhkov, its managing member (hereinafter Kruzhkov).

Pa,rella' s affirmatio11. d¢monstrated no personal knowledge· of anY oftile

4 of 8 [* 4] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 529406/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

transactional facts alleged in the complaint. "An attorney's affirmation that is not based

upon personal knowledge is of no probative or evidehtiary significance" (Nerayojfv

Khorshad, 168 AD3d 866, 867 [2d Dept 2019], citing Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental,

Inc~, 35 AD3d 455, 45 6 [2d Dept 2006]). Parella's affirmation states that additional facts

in support of the motion are contained in the affidavit ofl(ruzhkov.

Kruzhkov's affidavit is used to authenticate the agreement which was allegedly

breached by the ·defendants. He averred that he is the managing mein ber of the p Ia intiff

and, as such, has personal knowledge o fp laintit'f s business practices and procedures. He

further averred that the factual allegations· proffered.in.support.ofthe·.motion for

summary judgment were derived from his review of the plaintiffs business records. He

then refetred to the three documents attached to the motion, namely, the agreement, a

document denominatedasproofofpaymentand a document denominated as a payment

history.

Kruzhkov's affidavit averred that tlie defendants defaulted on the agreement by

either blocking _plaintiffs access to a designated bank account froin which the business

defendant agreed topermitplaintifftowithdraw receivables, orby failing to deposit

receivables into the bank account, or by depositing receivables into an account other than

the·agreed uponbank account.

Ktuzhkov's allegedthat the pay1nent hi~tory~ annexed as exhibit Oto his affidavit,

was proofofthe defendants.' default. "A proper foundation for the admission of a

business record must be provided by someone wi_th personalknowledge ofthe maker's

businesspra¢tices and procedures" (Citi.bi:mk) N.A. v Cabrera, 130 AD3d 861, 861 [24

5 of 8 [* 5] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 529406/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

Dept 2015]). Generaily, "the mere filing of papers received from other entities, even if

they are retained in the regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the documents

as business tecords'''{Bank ofN.Y Mellon v Gordon, 171 AD3d 197,209 [2d Dept 2019],

quoting Standard Textile Co. v National Equip. Rental, 80 AD2d 91 t 911 [2d Dept

1981]). "However, such records may be admitted into evidence if the recipient can

establish personal knowledge ofthe maker's business practices and procedures or

establish that the records provided by the nrnker were incorporated into the recipient's

own records and routinely relied upon by the recipient in its own business" (Bank ofN.Y.

Mellon, 171 AD3d at 209).

In paragraph 16 ofKruzhkov's. affidavit, Kruzhkov alleged thatthe defendants

breached the agreement "by defaulting on its representations and warnmties to Plaintiff

under the Agreement and by failing to direct its receivables/payments to Plaintiff, by

blocking Plaintiffs access to a designated bank account from which Business Defendant

agreed to permit Plaintiff to withdraw receivables, by failing to deposit receivables into

the Bank Account, and/or by depositing receivables into an account other than the agreed

upon Bank Accouht.'' Although the plaintiff contends that defendants performed certain

acts, the alleged acts were stated in the alternative and the payment history did not

_provide proof of any one of the alleged acts. Here, the payment history is submitted

without explaining how to read it Itis not self-explanatoty. Nor does it establish any of

the alleged acts by the defendants con•stituting a default under the agreement.

6 of 8 [* 6] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 529406/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

The plaintiff did not annex its own bank records or the bank records of the

defendants in support of the motion. It is unclear whether the payment history data is

derived from other records. "[I]tis the business record itself, not the foundational

affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted" (Citibank, NA. vPotente,210 AD3d

861, 862 [2d Dept 2022], quoting Banko/NY Mellon, l 71 AD3d at 205). Accordingly,

evidence of the contents of business records is admissible only where the records

themselves are introduced. "Witho11t their introduction, a witness 1s testimony as to the

contents of the recorcls is inadmissible hearsay" (Bank of New York Mellon v Gordon,

171 AD3d 197 [2d Dept 2019]). In smn, plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie

showing of entitlement to summary judgment on it claim that the business defendants

breach of the agreement.

Inasmtlch as the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing that th~ business

defendant breached the agreement, the plaintiff did not establish that the obligation ofthe

individualguarantor was triggered; As a result, the plaintiff also failed to show that the

guarantor breached the agreement.

Inasmuch, as the plaintifffailed to demonstrate that any defendant breached the

agreement, the third cause ofaction for attorney's fees basecl on a breach of the

agreement is also unsupported. The motion is therefore denied withoutre·gardto the

sufficiency orlack o(opposing papers (See Cugini v System Lbr. Co:, I 11 AD:id 114,

115 [1st Dept 1985]).

CONCLUSION

The. inotio11 by Ptospenun Capital Partners LLC D/B/A Arsenal Funding for an

7 of 8 -7]- ..........-...··-···-·- .............................. ·········- ........... . [* FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 529406/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

orderpursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summa1y judgment in its favor on its causes of

action for breach of contract, breach of a guarantee agreement, and attorney's fees based

on the breach asserted as against Bottego Enterprises,Inc., D/B/A Precision Craftsman

and Alfred Bottego is denied.

The foregoing Gonstitutes the decision and order of the Court.

ENTER: __ ..J>_.,~

l.8.C. HON. FRANCOISA; RlVERA

-8]- .............. ·-······-··............................... .. 8 of 8 [*