Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
:
DANIEL L. SCHWARTZ, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
- against - : Index No.: 651460/2018
:
WINSLOW & COMPANY LLC, : Motion Sequence No. 1
W& CO REAL ESTATE LLC, :
WAYNE JOSHUA WINSLOW, and :
ILONA WINSLOW, :
:
Defendants. :
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
DEFENDANTS'
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
TABLEOF CONTENTS
Page
~~~
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................................iii
PRELIMINARY 1
STATEMENT................................................................................................................
ARGUMENT 5
...............................................................................................................................................
I. PLAINTIFF'S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE
....................................................................................................................................
5
DISMISSED....................................................................................................................................
A. Plaintiff Has Properly Pleaded a Valid and Binding 5
Agreement........................................
Parties'
1. The Parties Course of Dealing Evidences a Binding .........................
5
Agreement.........................
2. Plaintiff Does Not Concede that the Agreement isUnsigned................................
7
Defendants'
3. Deliberate Spoliation of Evidence of the Agreement
Weighs Heavily Against Dismissal 8
.......................................................................
B. The Agreement Does Not Violate the Statute of Frauds ....................................................
9
Broker"
1. The Agreement isa "Duly Licensed Real Estate
Contract and isNot Subject to the Statute of ...........................................
10
Frauds...........................................
2. The Agreement is Capable of Being Performed Within One 11
Year......................
II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR CONVERSION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT,
QUANTUM MERUIT AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED 12
...........................................................................................................................
A. Plaintiff Properly Pleads These Claims in the Alternative 12
...............................................
"Quasi-Contractual"
B. None of the Claims Should Be Dismissed 13
......................................
1. Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit are Properly Pleaded 13
..........................
2. Promissory Estoppel isProperly Pleaded 14
............................................................
3. Conversion isProperly ...........................................................................
15
Pleaded...........................................................................
III. PLAINTIFF'S STATUTORY CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE ...........................
15
DISMISSED...........................
IV. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS JOSH
WINSLOW AND ILONA WINSLOW SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED .............................
17
A. The Individual Defendants May Be Held Personally Liable Under New
York Law 18
..........................................................................................................................
B. Plaintiff Properly Pleads a Basis for Personal Liability Against the
~ ~
Individual .......................................................................................................
20
Defendants.......................................................................................................
21
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................
..
11
2 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Ackerman v. Vertical Club Corp.
94 A.D.2d 665 (1st Dep't ......................................................................................................
18
1983)......................................................................................................
Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Landmark Ins. Co.
13 A.D.3d 172 (1st Dep't ........................................................................................................
5
2004)........................................................................................................
Amaro v. Gani Realty Corp.
60 A.D.3d 491 (1st Dep't ........................................................................................................
5
2009)........................................................................................................
Brown Bros. Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Beam Construction Corp.
41 N.Y.2d 397 6
(1977)..........................................................................................................................
Buckley v. 112 Central Park South
136 N.Y.S.2d 233 (1st Dep't 20
1954)...........................................................................................
18,
Capin & Associates, Inc. v. 599 West 188th Street, Inc.
2015 Slip Op 30386[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 2015)........................................................
12, 13, 19
Chan v. Kwok
2016 Slip Op 31538[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 6
2016)......................................................................
Cron v. Hargro Fabrics
91 N.Y.2d 362 11
(1998)........................................................................................................................
Curtis Props. Corp. v. Greif Cos.
236 A.D.2d 237 (1st Dep't ....................................................................................................
13
1997)....................................................................................................
Day Realty Corp. v. Chera
308 A.D.2d 148 (1st Dep't 12
....................................................................................................
2003)....................................................................................................
Flores v. Lower East Side Service Center, Inc.
4 N.Y.3d 363 6
(2005)............................................................................................................................
Hoag v. Chancellor, Inc.
246 A.D.2d 224 (1st Dep't ..............................................................................................
1998)..............................................................................................
18, 19
Jenach v. Rabizadeh
22 N.Y.3d 470 10
(2013)........................................................................................................................
Joseph Sternberg, Inc. v. Walber 36th Street Association
187 A.D.2d 225 (1st Dep't ....................................................................................................
13
1993)....................................................................................................
Kowalchuk v. Stroup
61 A.D.3d 118 (1st Dep't ........................................................................................................
6
2009)........................................................................................................
Lorio v. Northern Building Products, Inc.
...
111
3 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
2008 N.Y. Slip Op 30477 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. ................................................................
13
2008)................................................................
MatlinPatterson ATA Holdings LLC v. Fed. Express Corp.
87 A.D.3d 836 (1st Dep't 2011) 14
......................................................................................................
Mayer v. Marron
2015 Slip Op 32811[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 5, 6,7, 14
2015)........................................................
Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell
23 N.Y.2d 569 1969 10
........................................................................................................................
Niyazov v. Park Fragrance, LLC
2017 Slip Op 30610[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 5
2014)......................................................................
Options Group, Inc. v. Vyas
91 A.D.3d 446 (1st Dep't 2012) 6
........................................................................................................
Ortega v. City of New York
9 N.Y.3d
~ ~ 69 2007 ..............................................................................................................................
9
Payne v. White
101 A.D.2d 975 (3rd Dep't 15
1984)....................................................................................................
Pegasus Aviation I,Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A.
26 N.Y.3d
~ ~ 543 2015 ..........................................................................................................................
9
Polargrid LLC v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
2006 WL 903184 (S.D.N.Y. April 7, 14
2006)...................................................................................
Posson v. Przestrzelski
111 A.D.3d 1235 3rd De 't2013 10
.................................................................................................
Puppa v. G. Garrity Contr. Corp.
2017 Slip Op 30654[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 6
2017)......................................................................
Raptis v. Giamo/Eisidler Real Estate Services, Inc.
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 32097 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. ...............................................................
15
2010)...............................................................
Resource Finance Co. v. Cynergy Data LLC
106 A.D.3d 562 (1st Dep't ....................................................................................................
13
2013)....................................................................................................
Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose
275 A.D.2d 11 (1stDep't 2000) 8
........................................................................................................
Saran v. Shanghai Chengtou (USA), LLC
2018 Slip Op 30292[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 13
2018)..............................................................
10,
Serbetcioglu v. R.N. Joseph Fine Jewelry LLC
NY Slip Op 30687[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. ......................................................................
2011)......................................................................
19
Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co.
.
1V
4 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
83 N.Y. 378 12
(1881)............................................................................................................................
Skillgames, LLC v. Brody
1 A.D.3d 247 (1st Dep't 5
2003)...........................................................................................................
Steve Elliot, LLC v. Foxboro Productions
28 Misc.3d 38 (2nd Dep't 10
2010)......................................................................................................
Strategic Alliance Partners, LLC v. Dress Barn
386 F. Supp.2d 312 ...............................................................................................................
13
(2005)...............................................................................................................
U.S. Bank National Association v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
94 A.D.3d 58 (1st Dep't 2012)...........................................................................................................
9
Walkovsky v. Carlton
18 N.Y.2d 414 (1966)........................................................................................................................
19
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC
220 F.R.D.
~ ~ ~ 212 (S.D.N.Y.
~ ~ ~ ~ 2003).......................................................................................................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9
Statutes
.P.L.R.
C.P.L.R. § 21
301............................................................................................................................................
.P.L.R.
C.P.L.R. § 3017................................................................................................................................
4, 12, 17
.P.L.R.
C.P.L.R. § 3211...................................................................................................................................passim
...................................................................................................................................passim
New York General Obligations Law § 11
.............................................................................
5-701.............................................................................
9, 10,
New York City Administrative Code, Title 20, Chapter 10 .................................................
1,4, 15, 16
V
5 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
("
Plaintiff Daniel L. Schwartz ("Plaintiff") respectfully submits this memorandum of law (the
Memo" "Complaint"
"Opposition Memo") in opposition to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint (the "Complaint") of
Company"
defendants Winslow & Company, LLC ("Winslow & Company"), W & Co Real Estate LLC ("W &
(" "Defendants"
Co"), Wayne Joshua Winslow ("Josh Winslow") and Ilona Winslow (together "Defendants").
Defendants'
chief argument in support of dismissal is that Plaintiff's Complaint is based on an
unsigned"
"undated and writing that is not binding, and violates the Statute of Frauds. Memorandum of
Law in Support of Defendants Winslow & Company LLC, W & Co Real Estate LLC, Wayne Joshua
Memo" Defendants'
Winslow, and Ilona Winslow's Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter "Def. Memo") at 1. argument
misreads the Complaint, neglects almost entirely to read the law, and is fatally flawed on multiple
grounds.
Defendants'
In fact, very starting premise, that "Plaintiff's entire theory of recovery is based on
'contract,'"
an undated Def. Memo at 2, is wishful thinking. This action has not one, but three, key
themes.
Defendants'
First, itis indeed a nonpayment action, premised on Defendants deliberate breach of a binding
written agreement. Plaintiff has been paid nothing to date at least three commercial real estate deals he
brokered while working for Winslow & Company, and only partly paid on another, where Defendants
helped themselves to all of their own commissions and allof Plaintiff's commissions too. Second, this is
Isn'
an action about wrongful retaliation and illegal labor practices in violation of New York's Freelance Isn't
Free Act. Defendants not only completely refused to pay Plaintiff any commissions, but also pressured,
threatened, intimidated, and ultimately fired him merely fortrying to recover them. Third, this is an action
Defendants'
about intentional spoliation of evidence. Defendants destroyed emails to hide evidence of
Plaintiff's agreement and the commissions they owe him. Their arguments, and the Court's disposition of
the present motion to dismiss, must be read in the light of this damning and highly culpable conduct.
I
6 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
Defendants never dispute that Plaintiff worked as a broker for Winslow & Company for almost
ten years. They never dispute thatPlaintiff performed allof the work he claims on allof the relevant real
estate deals. They do not dispute that all the deals closed, or that Defendants received all of the
commissions in question. And they do not dispute that Plaintiff has received zero commissions to date or
that he has faced unconscionable conduct trying to recover those commissions. Read in this light,
Defendants' "unsigned"
myopic reliance on an agreement is a revealing self-indictment.
parties'
The agreement is binding. .
First, Plaintiffpleads sufficient facts demonstrating a valid and binding agreement, in particular,
"Agreement"
that the parties honored the July 5, 2016 agreement (the "Agreement") via their ensuing course of
conduct. Compl. ¶¶ 25-27. Plaintiff pleads a specific time period of at leastsix months (July 2016 until at
least December 2016, Compl. ¶ 26), and enumerates a series of commercial real estate deals he brokered
("Laruicci," "RDW," "Wellpass," "Sequoia"
and others, Compl. ¶ 27), in which Defendants honored the
core material term of the Agreement - the commission split.Under settled New York this is more
law,
than sufficient evidence of agreement for Plaintiffto ultimately prevail on his breach of contract claim,
and certainly more than adequate for Plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss under CPLR § 3211(a)(7).
parties'
New York courts have repeatedly held that evidence of the conduct in honoring an agreement is
weightier than an unsigned writing in determining that a binding agreement exists. See infra Section
I.A.1, pp. 5-7.
Defendants'
Second, argument misreads the Complaint, for Plaintiff has not pleaded that the
parties never signed the Agreement. Instead, Plaintiffpleads (a) that a valid and binding written contract
exists, Compl. ¶ 66; (b) that Defendants intentionally destroyed evidence of that contract prior to
Plaintiff's filing of thisaction, by hunting for and deleting emails (including the very email reflecting the
Agreement) from Winslow & Company email accounts, Compl. ¶¶ 56-64; and (c) that Plaintiff was
nevertheless able to retain and attach the copy of the Agreement attached as Exhibit A of the Complaint,
which isunsigned, Compl. ¶ 5.
7 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
To be clear, itis ultimately of no consequence whether or not the Agreement was signed, because
(a) the parties have honored the Agreement in fact,see infra Section I.A.1, pp. 5-7; and (b) a signed
is not required in the context of a real estate brokerage see infra Section pp. 10-
writing agreement, I.B.1,
11. Nevertheless, by arguing that no signed writing exists, Defendants address themselves to the
complaint they imagine Plaintiffhas submitted, rather than the Complaint Plaintiff actually has submitted.
Defendants'
Defendants argument, based on their error in reading the Complaint, should be rejected. See infra Section
I.A.2, p. 7.
Defendants'
Third, arguments to dismiss the breach of contract claim must be considered in light
of their intentional spoliation of evidence. Defendants should not be permitted to benefit from their
misconduct by arguing that a signed writing does not exist after intentionally destroying evidence of that
Defendants'
Agreement. Ample remedies exist under New York law for addressing intentional spoliation
of evidence, which Plaintiffexpects to raise at the appropriate juncture. In the meanwhile, Plaintiff should
be permitted to proceed with his breach of contract claim. See infra Section I.A.3, pp. 8-9.
The Statute of Frauds does not apply to this agreement.
Defendants'
argument that Plaintiff's breach of contract claim violates the Statute of Frauds is
simply wrong on the law. Real estate broker agreements are specifically excluded from the Statute, and
are fully enforceable when not in writing. But even if the Statute could rightly be invoked here, the
Agreement is capable on its face of being performed within a year, and therefore stillwould satisfy the
Statute of Frauds. See infra Section I.B,pp. 9-11.
Plaintiff's additional common law claims are well-pleaded.
In addition to claims for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fairdealing,
Plaintiff brings common law claims for (1) conversion; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) quantum meruit; and
Defendants'
(4) promissory estoppel. half-hearted response to allfour of these common law claims isthat
they are duplicative of, and/or barred by, his breach of contract claim. That isnot the case.
8 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
Plaintiff pleads his common law claims in the alternative. Under CPLR § 3017(a), and considered
here on a pre-discovery motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a), pleading claims in the alternative
is standard and permitted. The larger context here also bears repeating: Plaintiffhas been paid nothing on
at least three deals he brokered while working for Winslow 4 Company, and only partially paid on
another. Even ifPlaintiff's breach of contract claim were somehow to fail (and itis unclear on what basis
it would fail), Defendants would still remain in possession of more than half a million dollars of
Company.1
brokerage fees Plaintiff unquestionably earned while working in association with Winslow & Company.
His claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit and promissory estoppel are therefore
and appropriate in order to ensure of the unpaid fees. As each of these claims is well-
necessary recovery
pleaded - each of the elements of the cause of action is made out under the allegations of the
properly
Complaint - none should be dismissed. See infra Section pp. 11-15.
II,
The statutory claims for retaliation and wrongful payment practices are well-pleaded.
Plaintiff seeks approximately two million dollars,plus costs, forviolations of Title 20, Chapter 10
of New York City's Administrative Code, the Freelance Isn't Free Act, which protects freelance workers
from unfair retaliation and other wrongful payment practices. Despite conduct that is textbook-
alleging
tailored to fit the prohibitions of the statute, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's allegations are "conclusory
support."
and devoid of any factual Opp. Memo at 7.
It bears asking what degree of detail Defendants would not label as "conclusory and devoid of
support."
factual Plaintiff's pleadings are highly detailed as to the wrongful payment practices and
retaliatory actions Defendants have taken against him. Firstand foremost, Defendants terminated Plaintiff
from his association with Winslow & Company for trying to obtain his fees, conduct that is specifically
prohibited by the statute.Several other acts are alleged in detail.See infra Section III,pp. 15-17.
1 Defendants'
Note that thisremains true even based upon Defendants answer to Plaintiff'soriginal (pre-amended) complaint
"Answer"
(the "Answer"), in which Defendants contend that an earlier2008 written agreement governs the parties.Plaintiff
would still
be owed severalhundred thousand dollarsunder thisprior agreement, assuming itwas ever effectiveand
had not been superseded. Plainly thisaction should not be dismissed under the circumstances.
9 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018
The individual defendants, Josh and Ilona Winslow, are personally liable for acts taken
outside the scope of their agency. .
Defendants are incorrect in theirassertion that the individual defendants, Josh and Ilona Winslow,
cannot be held liable here. While it is true that they may not be held liable for breach of contract,
Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract are not even directed against them. Instead, Josh and Ilona
Winslow are individually liable for illegaland predatory acts taken fortheir personal gain, and outside the
scope of their agency as owners and officers of Winslow & Company. These acts include harassment and
retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of New York statute, and deliberate destruction of evidence
relevant to this action. Plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants rest on well-settled law and
shoul
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : DANIEL L. SCHWARTZ, : : Plaintiff, : : - against - : Index No.: 651460/2018 : WINSLOW & COMPANY LLC, : Motion Sequence No. 1 W& CO REAL ESTATE LLC, : WAYNE JOSHUA WINSLOW, and : ILONA WINSLOW, : : Defendants. : PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW DEFENDANTS' IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 of 26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 TABLEOF CONTENTS Page ~~~ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................................iii PRELIMINARY 1 STATEMENT................................................................................................................ ARGUMENT 5 ............................................................................................................................................... I. PLAINTIFF'S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE .................................................................................................................................... 5 DISMISSED.................................................................................................................................... A. Plaintiff Has Properly Pleaded a Valid and Binding 5 Agreement........................................ Parties' 1. The Parties Course of Dealing Evidences a Binding ......................... 5 Agreement......................... 2. Plaintiff Does Not Concede that the Agreement isUnsigned................................ 7 Defendants' 3. Deliberate Spoliation of Evidence of the Agreement Weighs Heavily Against Dismissal 8 ....................................................................... B. The Agreement Does Not Violate the Statute of Frauds .................................................... 9 Broker" 1. The Agreement isa "Duly Licensed Real Estate Contract and isNot Subject to the Statute of ........................................... 10 Frauds........................................... 2. The Agreement is Capable of Being Performed Within One 11 Year...................... II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR CONVERSION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, QUANTUM MERUIT AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 12 ........................................................................................................................... A. Plaintiff Properly Pleads These Claims in the Alternative 12 ............................................... "Quasi-Contractual" B. None of the Claims Should Be Dismissed 13 ...................................... 1. Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit are Properly Pleaded 13 .......................... 2. Promissory Estoppel isProperly Pleaded 14 ............................................................ 3. Conversion isProperly ........................................................................... 15 Pleaded........................................................................... III. PLAINTIFF'S STATUTORY CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE ........................... 15 DISMISSED........................... IV. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS JOSH WINSLOW AND ILONA WINSLOW SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED ............................. 17 A. The Individual Defendants May Be Held Personally Liable Under New York Law 18 .......................................................................................................................... B. Plaintiff Properly Pleads a Basis for Personal Liability Against the ~ ~ Individual ....................................................................................................... 20 Defendants....................................................................................................... 21 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................... .. 11 2 of 26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Ackerman v. Vertical Club Corp. 94 A.D.2d 665 (1st Dep't ...................................................................................................... 18 1983)...................................................................................................... Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Landmark Ins. Co. 13 A.D.3d 172 (1st Dep't ........................................................................................................ 5 2004)........................................................................................................ Amaro v. Gani Realty Corp. 60 A.D.3d 491 (1st Dep't ........................................................................................................ 5 2009)........................................................................................................ Brown Bros. Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Beam Construction Corp. 41 N.Y.2d 397 6 (1977).......................................................................................................................... Buckley v. 112 Central Park South 136 N.Y.S.2d 233 (1st Dep't 20 1954)........................................................................................... 18, Capin & Associates, Inc. v. 599 West 188th Street, Inc. 2015 Slip Op 30386[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 2015)........................................................ 12, 13, 19 Chan v. Kwok 2016 Slip Op 31538[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 6 2016)...................................................................... Cron v. Hargro Fabrics 91 N.Y.2d 362 11 (1998)........................................................................................................................ Curtis Props. Corp. v. Greif Cos. 236 A.D.2d 237 (1st Dep't .................................................................................................... 13 1997).................................................................................................... Day Realty Corp. v. Chera 308 A.D.2d 148 (1st Dep't 12 .................................................................................................... 2003).................................................................................................... Flores v. Lower East Side Service Center, Inc. 4 N.Y.3d 363 6 (2005)............................................................................................................................ Hoag v. Chancellor, Inc. 246 A.D.2d 224 (1st Dep't .............................................................................................. 1998).............................................................................................. 18, 19 Jenach v. Rabizadeh 22 N.Y.3d 470 10 (2013)........................................................................................................................ Joseph Sternberg, Inc. v. Walber 36th Street Association 187 A.D.2d 225 (1st Dep't .................................................................................................... 13 1993).................................................................................................... Kowalchuk v. Stroup 61 A.D.3d 118 (1st Dep't ........................................................................................................ 6 2009)........................................................................................................ Lorio v. Northern Building Products, Inc. ... 111 3 of 26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 30477 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. ................................................................ 13 2008)................................................................ MatlinPatterson ATA Holdings LLC v. Fed. Express Corp. 87 A.D.3d 836 (1st Dep't 2011) 14 ...................................................................................................... Mayer v. Marron 2015 Slip Op 32811[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 5, 6,7, 14 2015)........................................................ Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell 23 N.Y.2d 569 1969 10 ........................................................................................................................ Niyazov v. Park Fragrance, LLC 2017 Slip Op 30610[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 5 2014)...................................................................... Options Group, Inc. v. Vyas 91 A.D.3d 446 (1st Dep't 2012) 6 ........................................................................................................ Ortega v. City of New York 9 N.Y.3d ~ ~ 69 2007 .............................................................................................................................. 9 Payne v. White 101 A.D.2d 975 (3rd Dep't 15 1984).................................................................................................... Pegasus Aviation I,Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A. 26 N.Y.3d ~ ~ 543 2015 .......................................................................................................................... 9 Polargrid LLC v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 2006 WL 903184 (S.D.N.Y. April 7, 14 2006)................................................................................... Posson v. Przestrzelski 111 A.D.3d 1235 3rd De 't2013 10 ................................................................................................. Puppa v. G. Garrity Contr. Corp. 2017 Slip Op 30654[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 6 2017)...................................................................... Raptis v. Giamo/Eisidler Real Estate Services, Inc. 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 32097 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. ............................................................... 15 2010)............................................................... Resource Finance Co. v. Cynergy Data LLC 106 A.D.3d 562 (1st Dep't .................................................................................................... 13 2013).................................................................................................... Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose 275 A.D.2d 11 (1stDep't 2000) 8 ........................................................................................................ Saran v. Shanghai Chengtou (USA), LLC 2018 Slip Op 30292[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 13 2018).............................................................. 10, Serbetcioglu v. R.N. Joseph Fine Jewelry LLC NY Slip Op 30687[U] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. ...................................................................... 2011)...................................................................... 19 Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co. . 1V 4 of 26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 83 N.Y. 378 12 (1881)............................................................................................................................ Skillgames, LLC v. Brody 1 A.D.3d 247 (1st Dep't 5 2003)........................................................................................................... Steve Elliot, LLC v. Foxboro Productions 28 Misc.3d 38 (2nd Dep't 10 2010)...................................................................................................... Strategic Alliance Partners, LLC v. Dress Barn 386 F. Supp.2d 312 ............................................................................................................... 13 (2005)............................................................................................................... U.S. Bank National Association v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. 94 A.D.3d 58 (1st Dep't 2012)........................................................................................................... 9 Walkovsky v. Carlton 18 N.Y.2d 414 (1966)........................................................................................................................ 19 Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC 220 F.R.D. ~ ~ ~ 212 (S.D.N.Y. ~ ~ ~ ~ 2003)....................................................................................................... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9 Statutes .P.L.R. C.P.L.R. § 21 301............................................................................................................................................ .P.L.R. C.P.L.R. § 3017................................................................................................................................ 4, 12, 17 .P.L.R. C.P.L.R. § 3211...................................................................................................................................passim ...................................................................................................................................passim New York General Obligations Law § 11 ............................................................................. 5-701............................................................................. 9, 10, New York City Administrative Code, Title 20, Chapter 10 ................................................. 1,4, 15, 16 V 5 of 26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT (" Plaintiff Daniel L. Schwartz ("Plaintiff") respectfully submits this memorandum of law (the Memo" "Complaint" "Opposition Memo") in opposition to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint (the "Complaint") of Company" defendants Winslow & Company, LLC ("Winslow & Company"), W & Co Real Estate LLC ("W & (" "Defendants" Co"), Wayne Joshua Winslow ("Josh Winslow") and Ilona Winslow (together "Defendants"). Defendants' chief argument in support of dismissal is that Plaintiff's Complaint is based on an unsigned" "undated and writing that is not binding, and violates the Statute of Frauds. Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants Winslow & Company LLC, W & Co Real Estate LLC, Wayne Joshua Memo" Defendants' Winslow, and Ilona Winslow's Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter "Def. Memo") at 1. argument misreads the Complaint, neglects almost entirely to read the law, and is fatally flawed on multiple grounds. Defendants' In fact, very starting premise, that "Plaintiff's entire theory of recovery is based on 'contract,'" an undated Def. Memo at 2, is wishful thinking. This action has not one, but three, key themes. Defendants' First, itis indeed a nonpayment action, premised on Defendants deliberate breach of a binding written agreement. Plaintiff has been paid nothing to date at least three commercial real estate deals he brokered while working for Winslow & Company, and only partly paid on another, where Defendants helped themselves to all of their own commissions and allof Plaintiff's commissions too. Second, this is Isn' an action about wrongful retaliation and illegal labor practices in violation of New York's Freelance Isn't Free Act. Defendants not only completely refused to pay Plaintiff any commissions, but also pressured, threatened, intimidated, and ultimately fired him merely fortrying to recover them. Third, this is an action Defendants' about intentional spoliation of evidence. Defendants destroyed emails to hide evidence of Plaintiff's agreement and the commissions they owe him. Their arguments, and the Court's disposition of the present motion to dismiss, must be read in the light of this damning and highly culpable conduct. I 6 of 26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 Defendants never dispute that Plaintiff worked as a broker for Winslow & Company for almost ten years. They never dispute thatPlaintiff performed allof the work he claims on allof the relevant real estate deals. They do not dispute that all the deals closed, or that Defendants received all of the commissions in question. And they do not dispute that Plaintiff has received zero commissions to date or that he has faced unconscionable conduct trying to recover those commissions. Read in this light, Defendants' "unsigned" myopic reliance on an agreement is a revealing self-indictment. parties' The agreement is binding. . First, Plaintiffpleads sufficient facts demonstrating a valid and binding agreement, in particular, "Agreement" that the parties honored the July 5, 2016 agreement (the "Agreement") via their ensuing course of conduct. Compl. ¶¶ 25-27. Plaintiff pleads a specific time period of at leastsix months (July 2016 until at least December 2016, Compl. ¶ 26), and enumerates a series of commercial real estate deals he brokered ("Laruicci," "RDW," "Wellpass," "Sequoia" and others, Compl. ¶ 27), in which Defendants honored the core material term of the Agreement - the commission split.Under settled New York this is more law, than sufficient evidence of agreement for Plaintiffto ultimately prevail on his breach of contract claim, and certainly more than adequate for Plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss under CPLR § 3211(a)(7). parties' New York courts have repeatedly held that evidence of the conduct in honoring an agreement is weightier than an unsigned writing in determining that a binding agreement exists. See infra Section I.A.1, pp. 5-7. Defendants' Second, argument misreads the Complaint, for Plaintiff has not pleaded that the parties never signed the Agreement. Instead, Plaintiffpleads (a) that a valid and binding written contract exists, Compl. ¶ 66; (b) that Defendants intentionally destroyed evidence of that contract prior to Plaintiff's filing of thisaction, by hunting for and deleting emails (including the very email reflecting the Agreement) from Winslow & Company email accounts, Compl. ¶¶ 56-64; and (c) that Plaintiff was nevertheless able to retain and attach the copy of the Agreement attached as Exhibit A of the Complaint, which isunsigned, Compl. ¶ 5. 7 of 26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 To be clear, itis ultimately of no consequence whether or not the Agreement was signed, because (a) the parties have honored the Agreement in fact,see infra Section I.A.1, pp. 5-7; and (b) a signed is not required in the context of a real estate brokerage see infra Section pp. 10- writing agreement, I.B.1, 11. Nevertheless, by arguing that no signed writing exists, Defendants address themselves to the complaint they imagine Plaintiffhas submitted, rather than the Complaint Plaintiff actually has submitted. Defendants' Defendants argument, based on their error in reading the Complaint, should be rejected. See infra Section I.A.2, p. 7. Defendants' Third, arguments to dismiss the breach of contract claim must be considered in light of their intentional spoliation of evidence. Defendants should not be permitted to benefit from their misconduct by arguing that a signed writing does not exist after intentionally destroying evidence of that Defendants' Agreement. Ample remedies exist under New York law for addressing intentional spoliation of evidence, which Plaintiffexpects to raise at the appropriate juncture. In the meanwhile, Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed with his breach of contract claim. See infra Section I.A.3, pp. 8-9. The Statute of Frauds does not apply to this agreement. Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's breach of contract claim violates the Statute of Frauds is simply wrong on the law. Real estate broker agreements are specifically excluded from the Statute, and are fully enforceable when not in writing. But even if the Statute could rightly be invoked here, the Agreement is capable on its face of being performed within a year, and therefore stillwould satisfy the Statute of Frauds. See infra Section I.B,pp. 9-11. Plaintiff's additional common law claims are well-pleaded. In addition to claims for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fairdealing, Plaintiff brings common law claims for (1) conversion; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) quantum meruit; and Defendants' (4) promissory estoppel. half-hearted response to allfour of these common law claims isthat they are duplicative of, and/or barred by, his breach of contract claim. That isnot the case. 8 of 26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 Plaintiff pleads his common law claims in the alternative. Under CPLR § 3017(a), and considered here on a pre-discovery motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a), pleading claims in the alternative is standard and permitted. The larger context here also bears repeating: Plaintiffhas been paid nothing on at least three deals he brokered while working for Winslow 4 Company, and only partially paid on another. Even ifPlaintiff's breach of contract claim were somehow to fail (and itis unclear on what basis it would fail), Defendants would still remain in possession of more than half a million dollars of Company.1 brokerage fees Plaintiff unquestionably earned while working in association with Winslow & Company. His claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit and promissory estoppel are therefore and appropriate in order to ensure of the unpaid fees. As each of these claims is well- necessary recovery pleaded - each of the elements of the cause of action is made out under the allegations of the properly Complaint - none should be dismissed. See infra Section pp. 11-15. II, The statutory claims for retaliation and wrongful payment practices are well-pleaded. Plaintiff seeks approximately two million dollars,plus costs, forviolations of Title 20, Chapter 10 of New York City's Administrative Code, the Freelance Isn't Free Act, which protects freelance workers from unfair retaliation and other wrongful payment practices. Despite conduct that is textbook- alleging tailored to fit the prohibitions of the statute, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's allegations are "conclusory support." and devoid of any factual Opp. Memo at 7. It bears asking what degree of detail Defendants would not label as "conclusory and devoid of support." factual Plaintiff's pleadings are highly detailed as to the wrongful payment practices and retaliatory actions Defendants have taken against him. Firstand foremost, Defendants terminated Plaintiff from his association with Winslow & Company for trying to obtain his fees, conduct that is specifically prohibited by the statute.Several other acts are alleged in detail.See infra Section III,pp. 15-17. 1 Defendants' Note that thisremains true even based upon Defendants answer to Plaintiff'soriginal (pre-amended) complaint "Answer" (the "Answer"), in which Defendants contend that an earlier2008 written agreement governs the parties.Plaintiff would still be owed severalhundred thousand dollarsunder thisprior agreement, assuming itwas ever effectiveand had not been superseded. Plainly thisaction should not be dismissed under the circumstances. 9 of 26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 651460/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018 The individual defendants, Josh and Ilona Winslow, are personally liable for acts taken outside the scope of their agency. . Defendants are incorrect in theirassertion that the individual defendants, Josh and Ilona Winslow, cannot be held liable here. While it is true that they may not be held liable for breach of contract, Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract are not even directed against them. Instead, Josh and Ilona Winslow are individually liable for illegaland predatory acts taken fortheir personal gain, and outside the scope of their agency as owners and officers of Winslow & Company. These acts include harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of New York statute, and deliberate destruction of evidence relevant to this action. Plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants rest on well-settled law and shoul