SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Roland Realities, -against- Plaintiff, Solid State Elevator Corporation, Defendant. Index No. 501820/2017 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ROLAND REALITIES MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT S COUNTERCLAIMS Of Counsel: Jed Weiss Daniel G. Agius, Jr. COLE, SCHOTZ, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants Roland Realities 1325 Avenue of the Americas, 19 th Floor New York, New York 10019 (212) 752-8000 1 of 5
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff, Roland Realities ( Roland ), brings this motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), seeking dismissal of the Defendant, Solid State Elevator Corporation ( Defendant ) s Second Cross Claim alleging quantum meruit, because it is precluded as a matter of law. This cross claim pleads the same facts and seeks the same damages as Defendant s First Cause of Action for breach of contract. It is therefore duplicative and barred by the breach of contract claim. STATEMENT OF FACTS On January 1, 2017 Roland brought a complaint against Defendant alleging breach of contract, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from work Defendant was supposed undertake to modernize an elevator (the Work ) at 209 Avenue P, Brooklyn, NY (the Premises ). (Compl. 2, 33-62) As explained more fully therein, Defendant failed to perform its work to industry standards, understaffed the job, refused to provide a start date, refused to provide a completion date, installed improper equipment, unnecessarily delayed the work, manufactured phony problems where none existed, and repeatedly lied to Roland. (Compl. 4) All of this work was performed pursuant to an express contract between the parties, which was entered into on December 1, 2014 (the Contract ). (Compl. 11). On March 6, 2017 Defendant filed its Answer, Counterclaim and Cross Claim (the Answer ). In the Answer, it denies Roland s substantive allegations, and alleges its own causes of action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, account stated, and foreclosure of a mechanic s lien. (Answer 3-30). Defendant alleges the Work performed on the Premises was done pursuant to the Contract. (Answer 6-7) 2 2 of 5
ARGUMENT A complaint must be dismissed where it fails to state a cause of action. See CPLR 3211(a)(7); Gall v. Summit, Rovins and Feldesman, 222 A.D.2d 225 (1st Dep t 1995) (a motion to dismiss must be granted if the complaint on its face fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action). Although allegations in a complaint must be accorded every favorable inference on a motion to dismiss, bare legal conclusions and conclusory allegations lacking factual support are not presumed to be true on a motion to dismiss and are not accorded every favorable inference. Asgahar v. Tringali Realty, Inc., 795 N.Y.S.2d 68, 70 (2d Dep t 2005); Caniglia v. Chicago Tribune New York News Syndicate, Inc., 612 N.Y.S.2d 146, 147 (1st Dep t 1994). Even given this liberal pleading standard, Defendant s Second Cross Claim must be dismissed because it fails to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. I. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS DEFENDANT S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUANTUM MERUIT BECAUSE IT IS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM Defendant s Second Cross Claim must be dismissed because [r]ecovery under the theory of quantum meruit is not appropriate where, as here, an express contract govern[s] the subject matter involved. Parker Realty Group, Inc. v. Petigny, 14 N.Y.3d 864, 865 (2010)(citing Miller v. Schloss, 218 N.Y. 400, 406-7 (1916)). The elements of a quantum meruit cause of action are: (1) performance of services in good faith; (2) acceptance of services by the person to whom they are rendered; (3) expectation of compensation therefore; and (4) reasonable value of the services rendered. See Michaels v. Byung Keun Song, 138 A.D.3d 1074, 1074 (2d Dep t 2016) (citing Wehrum v. Illmensee, 902 N.Y.S.2d 607 (2d Dep t 2010)). Recovery under a theory of quantum meruit is precluded, however, when there exists a valid and enforceable written contract governing the same subject 3 3 of 5
matter. See Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388 (1987); see also Metropolitan Switch Bd. Mfg. Co., Inc. v. B & G Elec. Contractors, Div. of B & G Indus., Inc., 96 A.D.3d 725, 725 (2d Dep t 2012). Such a quasi-contract theory only applies in the absence of an express agreement. Id. As Defendant affirmatively alleges in the Answer, Roland entered into the Contract with Defendant to perform the Work. (Answer 7) Defendant asserts that $50,000 remains unpaid under the Contract. (Answer 9-12). More specifically, that Roland is liable to [Defendant] for breach of contract in the amount of $50,000. (Answer 12) Defendant s Second Cross Claim for quantum meruit alleges identical facts: that Defendant provided labor to the Premises having an agreed upon, fair and reasonable value... of which $50,000 has not been paid. (Answer 14) Defendant s own allegations regarding the parties to and subsequent alleged breach of the Contract eviscerate its claim for relief under a quantum meruit theory. See Orenstein v. Brum, 27 A.D.3d 352, 353 (1st Dep t 2006) (existence of express contract between broker and clients precluded broker s quantum meruit claims, where quantum meruit claims sought precisely the same amounts for precisely the same services alleged in broker s breach of contract claims) (citing Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc., 70 N.Y.2d at 388). Accordingly, this Cross Claim must be dismissed. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein Defendant s Second Cross Claim must be dismissed because it is completely barred as a matter of law. This dispute is governed by a valid contract, therefore their own quasi-contract claim of quantum meruit is improper. The Court should grant all other and further relief as is just, necessary, and proper. 4 4 of 5
DATED: New York, New York March 27, 2017 COLE SCHOTZ P.C. By: /s/ Jed Weiss Jed Weiss Daniel G. Agius, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Roland Realities 1325 Avenue of the Americas 19th Floor New York, NY 10019 (212) 752-8000 5 5 of 5