Shiller v. Bensusan Rest. Corp. , 2024 NY Slip Op 33814(U) ( 2024 )

Shiller v Bensusan Rest. Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 33814(U)October 24, 2024
Supreme Court, New York Counrty
Docket Number: Index No. 655943/2023
Judge: Melissa A. Crane
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: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/24/2024 04:41 P~ INDEX NO. 655943/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. MELISSA A. CRANE PART 60M
Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X
INDEX NO. 655943/2023
ROCHELLE SHILLER, DAVIDS. HARARI, ROCHELLE
SHILLER, DAVIDS. HARARI, ROCHELLE SHILLER, 07/02/2024,
MOTION DATE N/A
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 002
- V -
BENSUSAN RESTAURANT CORP., DANNY BENSUSAN,
STEVEN BENSUSAN, BLUE NOTE FESTIVALS LLC,BLUE
NOTE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,BLUE NOTE MEDIA GROUP
LLC,BLUE NOTE PRODUCTS LLC,BLUE NOTE
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC,BLUE NOTE DECISION + ORDER ON
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC (DELAWARE), BLUE MOTION
NOTE TOURS LLC,HALF NOTE PRODUCTIONS LLC,131
WEST 3RD STREET INC.,57 GROVE CORP, DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 20, 21, 22, 23, 25,
30
were read on this motion to/for DISMISS
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
39,40,41,42,43,50
were read on this motion to/for DISMISS
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
Motion 1 is moot have been withdrawn by stipulation [see EDOC 30]. The court grants
in part and denies in part motion 2 to dismiss for the reasons stated on the record of 10/24/2024.
Namely, the court sustains the first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Steven,
Danny and Bensusan. If it is true as alleged that Shabtai was a shareholder of the original
corporation that evolved into a thriving business empire that he also had a share in as described
in the 2002 written agreement [EDOC 39], then the overarching company, Bensusan, and Danny
and Steven as officers and directors, would owe a fiduciary duty to Shabtai. Plaintiff
655943/2023 SHILLER, ROCHELLE ET AL vs. BENSUSAN RESTAURANT CORP. ET AL Page 1 of4
Motion No. 001 002
[* 1] 1 of 4
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/24/2024 04:41 P~ INDEX NO. 655943/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/2024
successfully pled a breach of that duty by the allegations that Shabtai and his heirs were not paid
their share of the profits from the business enterprise. Breach of fiduciary duty is not duplicative
of the breach of contract cause of action, because: (1) defendants vociferously challenge the
existence of any agreement, but (2) if defendants are correct about the existence of an agreement,
this does not preclude Shabtai from having some sort of beneficial ownership given that he
allegedly put up the money that kicked off the business enterprise in 1981.
The court sustains the second cause of action for breach of contract for the reasons set
forth on the record, but grants that part of the motion seeking to dismiss the breach of contract
cause of action against Steven. It is undisputed that Steven never signed the 2002 Agreement.
The court denies that part of the motion to dismiss the third cause of action for a
constructive trust against ALL defendants. First, as defendants Steven, Danny and Bensusan
owed plaintiffs a fiduciary duty, they had a duty to hold Shabtai's share in trust and hand it over
to him. This they did not do. Hence, a cause of action for constructive trust lies against these
defendants.
As to the other defendant's, plaintiff alleges at paragraphs 75-79 of the complaint that
Danny, Steven and Bensusan created new entities and then diverted business from the entities in
which Shabtai had an alleged share to those new entities "as part of a scheme to deprive Shabtai
of his 50% ownership interest in the Blue Note business generally and his one-third interest in
International." [Compl. EDOC 26 at 79]. Diversion of profits to a new entity to avoid paying a
plaintiff allows for a constructive trust over those assets in the company to which those assets
were diverted (see Fellner v. Morimoto, 52 A.D.3d 352, 353 [1 st Dep't 2008] [on motion to
amend, court held "[r]egarding the cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust,
plaintiff sufficiently alleges that certain profits and business opportunities rightfully belonging to
655943/2023 SHILLER, ROCHELLE ET AL vs. BENSUSAN RESTAURANT CORP. ET AL Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 001 002
[* 2] 2 of 4
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/24/2024 04:41 P~ INDEX NO. 655943/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/2024
Moridon and its members were improperly diverted to defendant and Morimoto, Inc., without
consideration, thereby unjustly enriching defendant and Morimoto, Inc., an entity in which
plaintiff has no interest"]; see also Lizard O's v Baha Lounge Corp, 214 AD3d 597, 599 [!81
Dep't 2023 ["diversion of plaintiffs money" provided support for claim for breach of fiduciary
duty and constructive trust"]; Kraus USA, Inc. v. Magarik, 2020 WL 2415670, at *10 n. 13
[SDNY May 12, 2020][denying motion to dismiss and stating "the remedy for a diversion of
corporate opportunity is a constructive trust"]).
The third cause of action for an accounting against Danny, Steven, Bensusan and the
Blue Note defendants is upheld as the court has upheld the cause of action for breach of fiduciary
duty. Defendant on the record did not challenge plaintiffs right to an accounting from 131 West
3rd Street Inc and 57 Grove Corp (fourth cause of action), because Shabtai had an ownership
interest in those entities.
However, the court dismissed the fifth cause of action for unjust enrichment as it
duplicates other causes of action, in particular the cause of action for a constructive trust.
The court also dismissed the sixth cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation
against Danny and Steven. As explained on the record, plaintiff has failed to plead a
misrepresentation of present fact. All plaintiff describes is a broken promise. That is not fraud.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED THAT the court dismisses the fifth, sixth and breach of contract claims
against Steven and otherwise denies the motion; and it is further
ORDERED THAT defendants have 45 days from the efiled date of this decision and
order to answer the amended complaint; and it is further
655943/2023 SHILLER, ROCHELLE ET AL vs. BENSUSAN RESTAURANT CORP. ET AL Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 001 002
[* 3] 3 of 4
!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/24/2024 04:41 PM! INDEX NO. 655943/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/2024
ORDERED THAT the parties shall apprize the court, by email, as to the prospect for
mediation within ten days from thee-filed date of this decision and order.
202410~1B7~B0C28
10/24/2024
DATE MELISSA A. CRANE, J.S.C.
~
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
655943/2023 SHILLER, ROCHELLE ET AL vs. BENSUSAN RESTAURANT CORP. ET AL Page4 of 4
Motion No. 001 002
[* 4] 4 of 4