FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/27/ :44 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2016

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/27/ :44 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK Index No.: Date Purchased: ONEKEY, LLC, Plaintiff, V. COMPLAINT KNIGHT HARTE CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant. Plaintiff Onekey, LLC ("Onekey"), by its attorneys, Craig B. Johnson, Esq., LLC, as and for its Complaint respectfully shows: 1. Onekey is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, which is duly registered to transact business in the State of New York, and which has its principal place of business at 241 Hudson Street, Hackensack, New Jersey Onekey is in the construction business, and serves as a General Contractor in the New York metropolitan area, including New York County. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Knight Harte Construction, Inc., ("Knight Harte") is a domestic business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business at 400 West 37th Street, #6-G, New York, New York Upon information and belief, non-party 61st & 2nd NYC LLC ("Owner") is the owner of the subject real property located at 301 East 61St Street, New York, New York 10065, Block: 1436, Lot: 1 (the "Property"). 5. Onekey was engaged by the Owner, pursuant to a Prime Contract, to serve as the General Contractor for a construction project on the Property (the "Project"). 6. In turn, Onekey hired various subcontractors to construct the Project according to the plans and specifications provided by the Owner. 1 of 7

2 7. On or about March 16, 2016, Knight Harte commenced work at the Property. 8. On or about June 23, 2016, Onekey and Knight Harte memorialized their agreement by entering into a written subcontract (the "Subcontract"), under which Knight Harte was obligated to supply certain labor and certain materials for the interior furnishings (i.e., cabinetry and millwork) to the Project in exchange for Onekey's payment of $253, During the course of the Project, Onekey approved several Change Orders, which increased the value of the Subcontract. 10. As of October 3, 2016, the Subcontract value, inclusive of all approved Change Orders, totaled $467, Knight Harte last performed work or furnished materials on or about October 3, On or about October 3, 2016, Knight Harte abandoned the Project without having completed its work, in breach of its subcontract. 13. As of October 3, 2016, Knight Harte performed less than 56% of its obligations under the Subcontract, inclusive of Change Orders. 14. As of October 3, 2016, Onekey had paid Knight Harte in excess of the value of its work that it had completed under the Subcontract, less ten percent (10%) that has been properly withheld as retainage, pursuant to the express terms of the Subcontract. 15. Knight Harte left and abandoned the Project prior to completing its work under the Subcontract. 16. On October 24, 2016, Knight Harte filed a Mechanic's Lien in the office of the New York County Clerk against the Property (the "Lien"). A copy of the Lien is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 2 of 7

3 17. Knight Harte claimed in its Lien that the "agreed price and value of the labor performed and value of the materials furnished is $474, " Id. 18. Knight Harte further claimed in its Lien that the "amount unpaid to the lienor for said labor performed and said material furnished is $235, " FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 19. Onekey repeats and realleges the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through Onekey entered in to a valid, binding, and enforceable Subcontract with Knight Harte. 21. Knight Harte materially breached the Subcontract by abandoning the Project prior to completing its work under the Subcontract. 22. Knight Harte materially breached the Subcontract by not completing express and material terms of the Subcontract. 23. Onekey was greatly damaged by Knight Harte's material breaches of the Subcontract. 24. Knight Harte is liable to Onekey for all of Onekey's damages flowing from its breach, including Onekey's costs of this action, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees. WHEREFORE, Onekey, LLC, respectfully requests judgment against Knight Harte: a. For damages; b. For Court costs; c. For attorney's fees; and d. For such other relief that the Court deems appropriate. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 25. Onekey repeats and realleges the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through Onekey and Knight Harte had a direct relationship wherein Knight Harte agreed to supply labor and materials at the Project in exchange for payment by Onekey. 3 of 7

4 27. Onekey paid Knight Harte in excess of the value of the work completed under the Subcontract. 28. It is against equity and good conscience to permit Knight Harte to retain the benefits conferred by Onekey. WHEREFORE, Onekey, LLC, respectfully requests judgment against Knight Harte: a. For damages; b. For disgorgement of all sums Onekey paid to Knight Harte; c. For Court costs; d. For attorney's fees; and e. For such other relief that the Court deems appropriate. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 29. Onekey repeats and realleges the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through Knight Harte, in its Itemized Statement of Lien, wrongfully claims that it is owed $235, from Onekey for labor and materials for work at the Project. See Exhibit A. 31. All of the monies Knight Harte claims to be owed were, in fact, paid by Onekey. 32. In fact, Onekey unintentionally overpaid Knight Harte. 33. Section 39-a of the New York Lien Law states: Where in any action or proceeding to enforce a mechanic's lien upon a private or public improvement the court shall have declared said lien to be void on account of willful exaggeration the person filing such notice of lien shall be liable in damages to the owner or contractor. The damages which said owner or contractor shall be entitled to recover, shall include... reasonable attorney's fees for services in securing the discharge of the lien, and an amount equal to the difference by which the amount claimed to be due or to become due as stated in the notice of lien exceeded the amount actually due or to become due thereon. 4 of 7

5 34. Knight Harte filed its Lien despite its knowledge that it is not owed any money for its work on the Project. 35. Knight Harte has willfully exaggerated its Lien, in violation of Section 39-a, by at least $235, (i.e., the full amount of the Lien). 36. Thus, pursuant to Section 39-a, Knight Harte's Lien is void. 37. Onekey has been greatly damaged by Knight Harte's willful exaggeration of its Lien. 38. Onekey was required to bond off Knight Harte's Lien at great cost. 39. Thus, Onekey is also entitled to Judgment against Knight Harte in the amount of $235, plus the cost to bond off the Lien. 40. Pursuant to Section 39-a, Knight Harte is further liable to Onekey for all of Onekey's costs to defend against Knight Harte's void and willfully exaggerated Lien. 41. The amount of Onekey's attorney's fees must be added to the amount of its Judgment against Knight Harte. WHEREFORE, Onekey, LLC respectfully requests judgment against Knight Harte: a. Declaring, pursuant to Section 39-a of the Lien Law, that Knight Harte willfully exaggerated its Lien; b. Vacating, discharging and cancelling Knight Harte's Lien, and directing the New Your County Clerk to vacate, discharge and cancel same, as a matter of record, and to accordingly adjust all of the County Clerk's records regarding same; c. Ordering that Onekey have Judgment against Knight Harte, pursuant to Section 39-a of the Lien Law, for Knight Harte's willful exaggeration in the filing of the Lien, in the amount of $235,082.99; 5 of 7

6 d. Ordering that Onekey also have Judgment against Knight Harte, pursuant to Section 39-a of the Lien Law, for Onekey's cost to bond off the Lien; e. Ordering that Onekey also have Judgment against Knight Ilarte, pursuant to Section 39-a of the Lien Law, in the amount of the legal fees for securing the discharge of the lien; and f. For such other relief that the Court deems appropriate. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 42. Onekey repeats and realleges the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through Knight Harte intentionally, improperly, maliciously, and tortiously interfered with Onekey's Prime Contract with the Owner and with Onekey's subcontracts with other subcontractors including, but not limited to: encouraging other subcontractors to file similarly fraudulent liens against the Property; and by publishing to the Owner false and disparaging statements about Onekey and its principals for no legitimate purpose. 44. By its same actions, Knight Harte also tortuously interfered with Onekey's prospective economic advantage. 45. Onekey has suffered economic damage as a result of Knight Harte's actions. WHEREFORE, Onekey, LLC respectfully requests judgment against Knight Harte: a. For compensatory damages; b. For punitive damages; c. For Court costs; d. For attorney's fees; and e. For such other relief that the Court deems appropriate. 6 of 7

7 Dated: December 27, 2016 Is! Craig B. Johnson Craig B. Johnson, Esq., LLC Attorney for Plaintiff Onekey, LLC 85 West Hawthorne Avenue Valley Stream, New York (516) By: Craig B. Johnson 7 of 7