sbc telecom v. vega - nda and ripoff report.pdf

7/25/2019 SBC Telecom v. Vega - NDA and Ripoff Report.pdf

1/22

SBC Telecom Consulting Inc. v Vega

2015 NY Slip Op 32500(U)

December 2, 2015

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: 651352/2015

Judge: Donna M. Mills

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY SlipOp 30001(U), are republished from various state and

local government websites. These include the New YorkState Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the

Bronx County Clerk's office.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for officialpublication.


2/22

SUPREME COURT

OF

THE

STATE

OF NEW YORK

COUNTY

OF

NEW

YORK:

IAS

PART 58

~ x

SBC TELECOM

CONSULTING

INC.

D/B/A SBC

FINANCIAL,

P l a i n t i f f ,

- a g a i n s t -

ARMANDO VEGA, VEGA

CREDIT

CARE

LLC,

JOHN,

DOES

'S

1-10 AND

ABC

CORP. # ' s

1-10,

Defendants .

---------------------------------x

DONN

MILLS

J

:

Index

No.:

651352/2015

P l a i n t i f f

SBC Telecom Consult ing

Inc .

d /b /a ss Financ ia l

(SBC Telecom) br ings t h i s complaint_

aga ins t

defendan t s Armando

Vega (Vega),

Vega Credi t

Care

LLC

(Vega

Cred i t ) , John Does # ' s

1-

10

and ABC Corp.

# ' s .1 -10

1

a l leg ing 11

causes o f ac t ion ,

including breach of contrac t ,

breach

of

f iduc ia ry

duty , t o r t i ous

in te r fe rence

with

con t rac tua l r e l a t i ons , l i b e l and

defamat ion

per

se . Vega i s an ex-employee of SBC Telecom. Vega,

ac t i n g pro

se ,

moves,

on

beha l f o f

himsel f

and Vega Credi t , pursuan t to

CPLR

32_11 (a)

1)

and 7)

, for an

order d i smiss ing

the

compla in t .

B CKGROUND ND F CTU L LLEG TIONS

P l a i n t i f f i s

a

company t ha t l abe l s

i t s e l f

as an

e n t i t y

in

the

merchant

cash

advance

bus ines s .

Complaint ,

2.

Vega

The

cour t

h a ~ not

been informed

whether the re a re any

John

Doe

o r ABC Corp. people o r e n t i t i e s .

]


3/22

Cred i t

i s a l im i t ed

l i a b i l i t y

company, o f

which

Vega

i s

a

p r in c ip a l . Vega was

hi red by

SBC Telecom

in

August

2014

to work

as a c a l l cen te r

agent .

His

du t ies inc luded opening

and

c los ing

dea l s

and he

was

r e s p o n s i b l e fo r g a t h e r i n g

ap p l i c a t i o n s

and

f inanc ia l s ta tements from prospec t ive c l i en t s . Aff of Vanessa

Cardona,

6.

When

he was hi red ,

Vega en t e red i n to an

employment

agreement

(Employment

Agreement) -which

inc luded

a c o n f i d e n t i a l

non-d i sc losure non-c i rcumvent

agreement

(Non-d isc losure

Agreement) .

In

p e r t i n e n t p a r t ,

the

Employment

Agreement

s e t s

fo r th

t h a t

p l a i n t i f f

i s

engaged

in

purchas ing

bus iness rece ivab le s

a t

discount p r i ce s and

t h a t t

i s al lowing Vega to have access to

these spec ia l

unique as s e t s

fo r the purposes of e s t a b l i sh i n g ,

developing

and

expanding the Company's c l i e n t base

and

p r o f i t a b i l i t y . Complaint , ex h ib i t A a t 1. In r e tu r n fo r t h i s

access ,

Vega

agreed

t h a t

he would

not

d isc lose

c o n f i d e n t i a l

informat ion t ha t

he has l ea rned by being

assoc ia ted with t h e

company.

According

to

the

Employment

Agreement , c o n f i d e n t i a l

informat ion

inc ludes ,

among

othe r

th ings , a l l da ta ,

ana lyses ,

repor t s ,

products

t r ade

s ec r e t s

and othe r i n t e l l e c t u a l

proper ty

Id

a t

4.

Pursuant

to

the .Employment

Agreement, Vega

i s

not to

compete

wi th S C

Telecom

fo r

one

year

a f t e r hi s t e rmi n a t i o n

da te .

-2 -

]


4/22

The Non-d isc losure Agreement se t s fo r th , in p e r t i n e n t p a r t ,

t ha t Vega

agrees t ha t

he w i l l not d isc lose c o n f i d e n t i a l

information about

S C

Telecom,

or use t

for the

purpose

of

competing

with

S C

Telecom.

I t

a l so

s t a t e s

t ha t

Vega

i s

not

to

make con tac t

with

c e r t a i n l i s t e d ind iv idua l s and

e n t i t i e s with

s p ec i f i c knowledge

in the f i e ld of advanced merchant advance

t echnology ,

among othe r people, for 36

months a f t e r

the da te the

Non-di sc losure Agreement i s

terminated . Complaint , exh ib i t a t

5.

According

to

S C Telecom,

on November

13, 2014,

Vega

unsuccess fu l ly a t tempted

t o b r ibe

one o f i t s employees by

of fe r ing her 100.00

for

user

names

and

passwords

to be ab l e

to

access

co n f id en t i a l c l i e n t s '

informat ion.

Around

the

same t ime,

S C Telecom a l l eg ed ly found documents in a s t a i rw e l l near

Vega ' s

off i ce . These documents

were

c l i e n t f i l e s t ha t

Vega

had been

working on.

Due to

both

of these

inc iden ts ,

S C Telecom t e rmina ted Vega

in the morning

of November

18, 2014, and t o l d

him

to go

home.

Vega l e f t

the

o f f i ce but

then

con tac ted

S C

Telecom, c la iming

tha t

he did

noth ing

wrong

and t h a t

he

wanted to

pick

up h is

pay

check. S C Telecom t o l d Vega t h a t

t

would mai l

him

h i s

paycheck,

as

per

company

pol i cy .

Vega

then

came

to

the

o f f i c e

and

demanded

h is

paycheck.

S C Telecom c a l l e d s e c u r i t y and the

pol ice ,

and

Vega a l leged ly s t a r t e d to y e l l a t

the

o ther

S C

-3 -

]


5/22

employees

t ha t they should qu i t ahead of

t ime

because the

company

was not going

to pay

them.

Complaint , II 39.

On November 19, 2014, according to SBC Telecom,

Vega

threa tened

t ha t

i

he

was

not given

his

check

and

an

ex t ra

amount, he

would

c a l l

SBC Telecom c l i en t s

and

have

them put

s top

payments on t h e i r

loans .

He a l so a l l eged ly th rea tened , in

the

same

conversat ion,

watch

what

I wi l l put on Ripoff

Report .

Id . II 47.

SBC Telecom be l ieves t ha t , a f t e r he was

t e rmina ted ,

Vega

posted,

or

had

o ther s post , d i sparaging pos t s

on

www.ripoffreport .com

( r ipof f repor t ) about SBC

Telecom.

The f i r s t

post

was posted around November 17, 2014 from a madmerchant in

Atlanta ,

Georgia .

Vega

had not

yet been t e rmina ted , but SBC

Telecom avers

t ha t he

posted

t h i s , or

had someone

e l s e do it

on

his

beha l f . The post s t a t e d

the fol lowing, in

per t inent pa r t :

I was

promised $50,000

and

l a t e r

I

found

out

t ha t

they

only want to give me $7000.00 with a sp e c i f i e d amount

of $10,430.00

or

the

money

I would have to pay back

a l l they want i s to get you for a micro loan a t 49

on a 30 day te rm and

you

never here

[s ic ] from them

again . . they [s ic ] have no i n t en t ion

of g iv ing

you

the

second

loan amount the re

[s ic]

whole

business

model i s

l i e ing

[s ic ] to you and

making

an empty promise on

funds you wi l l

never

ge t

Thay [s ic ] are crooks

and l o se rs and th ives [ s i c ] .

Complaint, exh ib i t C a t

2-3.

The

second pos t ing , made by a user in

Wisconsin,

was posted

in

January 2015.

The onl ine

complaint

s t a t e d the fo l lowing, in

re levant

par t :

-4 -

]


6/22

sbc f i n a n c i a l contac ted

me

and sa id t hey cou ld g ive

me

a l a rge working cap i t a l loan With [s ic] a r e a l l y

low

i n t e r e s t r a t e . r i gh t [ s ic ]

before I

was to

r ece ive

it

they wanted me to f i r s t

pay

of f a sm a l l e r loan to see

if I

was

c r e d i t worthy. I pa id of f the smal l e r loan ,

then

they sa i d they

would

wire t he l a rge r

amount to my

accoun t .

Not

on ly

did

they

not wire

it

bu t they

keep

t ry ing

to

t ake

money

out

of

my

account for the

loan I

paid

on.

They were

very

rude to me

when

I would

t a l k

to them.

Complaint , e x h i b i t

D

a t 2.

The

t h i r d pos t ing , a l l eged ly done by Vega, was

from

a use r

in

Flor ida in February

2015.

The pos t ing

s t a t e s ,

[ t ] he y loan

a

smal l amount,

sen t

s t r anger

to our

home/o f f ice , never pa id

t o t a l r i po f f ,

nothing

bu t l i e s and

dece i t .

Complaint , e x h i b i t

E

a t 2.

Vega, moving

on

beha l f of h imse l f and Vega Cred i t , argues

tha t he

did not breach

any

agreements

and

t ha t he d id

not make

any l i be lous s t a t em en t s aga ins t S C

Telecom. Vega be l i eves

t ha t

he was wrongful ly te rmina ted .

In add i t i on ,

any

s t a t em en t s t ha t

were

made, a l b e i t not or ig ina ted

or

encouraged by [Vega], were

c l e a r

express ions of op in ion . Motion to

d ismiss

a t

5.

Vega i n t roduces s i x p ~ v i o u s pos t ings on

r i po f f repor t . com,

tha t

were

made p r i o r

to

when Vega was

t e rm ina ted .

The

pos t ings ,

dated

between

2013

and 2014,

were

from

employees who had

bad

exper iences dur ing t h e i r t r a i n i ng with S C Telecom, as wel l

as

from o ther

peop le

who

had bad

exper iences .

For

example , one of

the pos t ings was dated September

19,

2014 and e n t i t l e d SBC

Financ ia l scam,

scam,

scam, they

w i l l not

pay you bu t t hey wi l l

-5 -

]


7/22

waste your d ay . Motion to dismiss , ex h ib i t at

1.

In t h i s

pos t ing , a p o t e n t i a l e ~ p l o y e e s t a t e s

t h a t

t h e o f f i c e

was smal l

and shabby [ a ] f t e r

an

e n t i r e day

and

a one

hour

lunch

' b reak ,

I

was t o l d

t h a t

I

was

the

wors t

o f

my

t r a i n i n g

c l a s s

and

t h a t

t hey

would

not

be h i r i n g m e ~

They

1 e t me go . . a f t e r

wast ing my d ay .

Id a t

2.

Another

pos t ing

i s f rom a p o t e n t i a l e ~ p l o y e e

who

wri tes ,

[ t ] h i s company i s a

f r eak in g SC M

.

ND

ESSENTIALLY JOHN

BUTLER IS A

DRUG

ADDICT. Motion to

d i smis s ,

~ x h i b i t E a t 2.

Fina l ly ,

an o th e r

pos t ing ,

dated

June 11, 2014,

was l abe l ed ,

SBC

F i n a n c i ~ l

SBC

Corpora t ion ,

John But le r .

. Fraudu len t

Lending Scheme Ne0 York. Motion to d i smis s , ex h ib i t C a t 1.

The pos t ing inc luded a l lega t ions_

about

SBC

t h a t it

was not

r e g i s t e r e d with FINRA and

t h a t

it not

r e g i s t e r e d

wi th the New

York

Sec re ta ry

o f S ta t e . The

pos t ing s t a t e d

t h a t

SBC Telecom was

a f raud/scam

and

to

not

waste t ime doing

bus iness

wi th

them.

SBC

Telecom con tac t ed . the pos t e r , via

r ipof f repor t . com,

wi th a c e ~ s e

and

d es i s t l e t t e r

about

the pos te r ' s_

a l l eged

defamatory

comments. The

p o s t e r

wrote back, on

r ipof f repor t . com, [h ]ave

:you

guys

f i l e d

wi th FINRA

yet?

No? Then y o u ' r e

still

a

complete

scam.

What

a re your funding sources? Why are_ you

not r e g i s t e r e d

,wi th the

NY

SOS? Don' t

make

empty

t h r e a t s

it

makes you

look

s t u p i d . Id a t 2 . .

Vega

a l so

d i s p u t ~ s the a l l eg a t i o n s t h a t

he

a t t emp ted to

-6 -

]


8/22

br ibe an

employee.

e ques t ions why would he have a

reason

to

ask

for

t h i s ,

i a c c o ~ d i n g

to

the complaint

1

he t h rea t ened that

he had

access to

a l l of the

c l i e n t s and

would

make

.them defau l t

in

t he i r

payments.

Ih

response,

SBC

Telecom acknowledges

t ha t the

a l leged ly

defamatory pos t ings pre -da t ing Vega s employment

were not

made by

vega

and are not par t of i t s complaint .

Nonethe less ,

it

~ m i n t i n s

t h a t

the

pos t ings-which were a l leged ly made by

Vega,

are f a l s e and

c ons t i t u t e

defamat ion ~ s a

mat te r

of l aw.

Schuchatowitz

af f i rmat ion ,

48.

SB C

Telecom

avers

t ha t

Vega

cannot prove t ha t be did not make the pos t s o r t ha t he did not

ask someone to pos t it on his_ b e h ~ l f I t s t a t e s , [ t ] he

Ripoff

Reports

above

are

burs t ing with

as s e r t i o n s of

f a c t s as to a l leged

pa r t i c u l a r t ransac t ions , loan amounts, i n t e r e s t r a t e s t ha t

e i t he r

occurred or d id no t_occur . Id . ~ 4 7 ~

SBC

Telecom

c o n t i n ~ e s

t h a t Vega

a l leged ly

breached

h i s

employment

agreement by at tempt ing t o b r ibe an employee fo r

the

user names and

passwords

and

by purpor tedly leaving c l i e n t

f i l e s

loose in a s t a i rw e l l .

SBC Telecom fu r the r argues t ha t Vega

breached his employment agreement

by making

t h r e a t s

to

convince

SBC Telecom s c l i en t s

to de fau l t

ori t he i r

merchant

cash advance

ob l iga t ions . Id .

29.

SBC

Telecom

provides

one

concre te

example

o f

how it was damaged by

Vega .s

a l leged ac t ions .

I t

claims

t h a t

-7 -

]


9/22

Upon informat ion

and

b e l i e f ~

for

example, due

to

Defendant

Vega 's e f f o r t s

to convince

P l a i n t i f f SBC's

c l i e n t

Al l red

Qual i ty Exte r io r s LLC

( h e r e in a f t e r

'A l l r ed ' )

to

d e f au l t

on t h e i r

payments

to P l a i n t i f f ,

All red de fau l t ed on t h e i r

payments and p l ace

[s ic ]

an

ROB

s topped

payment which caused damages

to

P l a i n t i f f

SBC's

p a r t n e r ' s

payment

processor

as

the

maximum

na t iona l re jec t .payment r ~ t e i s

only

1 and Al l red no

longer

want

to

make payments

to the

par tne r and

has

l o s t a l l f a i t h in P l a i n t i f f SBC

and

i t s ISO par tne r .

Upon informat ion

and

be l i e f , All red

s topped payments

on

o r about November 1-0th

2014, resumed payment th rough

co l l e c t i o n

e f f o r t s

and placed s top payments

on o r

about

December 5th 2014.

Id . Jl Jl

30, 31.

According to SBC Telecom, s ince Vega 's a l l eged pos t ings , t

has

su f fe red a t l e a s t a 55 reduc t ion in

revenue,

rep re sen t ing a

loss

of a t

l ea s t

$178,750.00

per

~ o n t h

in revenue . Complaint , JI

55. SBC Telecom f i l e d t h i s -compla in t ,

with

11 causes o f ac t ion ,

seeking t en mil l ion d o l l a r s

in

compensatory damages and two

mil l ion

do l l a rs in puni t ive

damages.

In the

f i r s t cause of

ac t ion

fo r breach

o f

co n t r ac t ,

SBC

Telecom cla ims

t ha t

Vega breached

hi s agreements

with SBC Telecom

by a l l eged ly a t t empt ing to br ibe

an

employee fo r a c c e s s . t o user

names

and

passwords , s t e a l i n g

the

f i l e s

and

th rea ten ing to

c a l l

c l i e n t s

and

have them ~ e f u l t ori t h e i r loans and

by making

the

i n t e rne t pos t ings .

SBC Telecom

s t a t e s t ha t

t

was damaged

by

Vega and

Vega

Cre d i t ' s ac t ions .

The second cause o f ac t ion , fo r bteach of the covenant of

good

fa i th and f a i r dea l ing ,

s t a t e s

t h a t Vega

compromised SBC

Telecom's

r i g h t s to rece ive t h ~ r u i t s of i t s r e l a t i o n sh i p s with

-8 -

]


10/22

c l i e n t s

and othe r bus iness by t h rea t en ing to

c a l l

c l i e n t s

and

have

them

defau l t .

In the t h i r d cause of ac t ion , S C Telecom c la ims t ha t Vega

breached hi s

f iduc ia ry

duty to S C

Telecom.

The four th

cause of ac t ion

i s

fo r

t o r t i o u s

i n t e r f e re n c e with

cont rac t

and

bus iness re l a t ionsh ips .

S C Telecom

main ta ins

t h a t

t had

v a l id co n t r ac t s

and /or bus iness r e l a t i o n sh i p s ,

which

were

known by Vega, who then wrongful ly

i n t e r f e r e d

with t he se

c o n t r a c t s / r e l a t i o n sh i p s .

In the s ix th cause o f ac t ion ,

grounded

in promissory

es toppe l , S C Telecom

cla ims

t h a t

t su f fe red damages as a r e s u l t

of i t s reasonab le and fo reseeab le r e l i ance on Vega s promises .

In the seven th cause of ac t ion , S C Telecom

a l l eg es

t h a t

Vega

improper ly

conver ted

the

f i l e s

belonging to S C

Telecom.

The

seven th cause o f ac t ion

s t a t e s t h a t Vega

was

u n ju s t l y

enr iched a t

the expense of S C

Telecom.

In

the e igh th cause

o f

ac t ion fo r l i b e l , S C

Telecom

c la ims

t h a t defendan ts

harmed S C Telecom by wri t ing

f a l s e s ta tements

and disseminat ing t h i s in fo rmat ion .

S C

Telecom argues

t ha t , as

a

r e su l t of defendan t s s t a tements , t has su f fe red

a

l o s s of

bus iness and harm to ts

bus iness

r epu ta t ion .

The

nin th cause

of ac t ion , grounded i n s l ande r ,

s t a t e s

t h a t

defendants

have made

fa l se ,

s landerous

and defamatory s ta tements

aga ins t S C Telecom by crea t ing the pos t ings on r ipof f repor t . com.

-9 -

]


11/22

S C

Telecom a l leges t h a t defendan ts

engaged

in defamat ion

per se by dissemina t ing

f a l s e

in fo rmat ion about SBC Telecom's

business .

In

the e leven th

and

f i n a l

cause

o f

ac t ion ,

SBC

Telecom

contends t ha t

defendan ts

a re l i a b l e fo r t r ade

l i b e l

fo r

pos t ing

f a l se , l ibe lous

and

defamatory mate r i a l with the i n t e n t t o d e t e r

others from

doing

bus iness with S C Telecom.

DIS USSION

Dismissa l :

On

a

motion

to

dismiss pursuan t

to

CPLR

3211,

t he

f a c t s

as

a l l eg ed in the compla int

must be

accep ted as t r u e , t he p l a i n t i f f

i s- a cc o rd e d

the b en e f i t o f every

poss ib l e

favorab le i n f e r en ce ,

and the cour t

must

determine s imply whether t h e f a c t s as a l l eged

f i t

with in any cognizab le l ega l

t heory . Mendelovi tz

v

Cohen 37

AD3d 670,

671 (2d

Dept 2007) ; see

also P.T.

Bank

Cent . As ia

N.Y.

Branch v BN

MRO

Bank N.V. 301 AD d

373,

375 (1st Dept

2003).

Under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) , a co u r t may f r e e l y co n s i d e r

a f f i d a v i t s submi t ted by the

p l a i n t i f f

to remedy any defec t s

in

the compla int

and

the c r i t e r i o n i s

whether

the

proponent

of the

plead ing

has

a cause of ac t ion , n6t whether he

has s t a t e d one .

Leon v Martinez 84 NY d

83,

88 (1994) ( in t e rna l quota t ion

marks

and

c i t a t i ons

omi t t ed) . Dismissal i s warran ted

under

CPLR 3211

(a) (1) only i the documentary evidence submi t ted

conc lus ive ly

-1 0 -

0]


12/22

es tab l i shes

a

defense to the asse r ted cla ims as

a mat te r o f law.

Id. However,

bare

l eg a l

conclus ions

as wel l as

fac tua l

cla ims

f l a t l y

con t rad ic t ed by the

record are

not e n t i t l e d

to

any such

cons idera t ion .

Silverman Nicholson

110

AD3d

1054,

1055 2d

Dept 2013)

( in t e rna l quota t ion

marks

and c i t a t i o n omi t t ed ) .

Breach of Contract :

The complain t

s t a t e s , in

vague terms, t ha t Vega

breached

the

agreements

he

had

with

S C

Telecom and

t ha t , as a r e su l t o f

h is

and Vega

Cre d i t ' s

actions_,

S C

Telecom was damaged. To s t a r t , a

cause of

ac t ion

grounded

in

breach

o f

con t rac t

cannot

be

a l leged

as aga ins t Vega

Cred i t , because Vega

Credi t

was not a par ty to

the agreements. See e .g .

Black Car

Livery

I n s .

Inc.

H W

Brokerage Inc .

28

AD3d

595,

595 2d Dept 2006) ( the

breach

o f

cont rac t

cause o f ac t ion was

proper ly

dismissed

as

to

the

respondent,

s ince

he was not

a par ty to

the

agreement

in

ques t ion ) .

The elements

of a

breach of con t rac t

claim are :

1) the

exis tence

o f a va l id con t rac t ; 2) performance of

the

con t rac t

by

the

i n ju red

par ty ;

3)

breach by the

othe r

par ty ; and 4)

r esu l t ing

damages.

Morris 702 E. Fi f th S t . HDFC, 46 AD3d 478,

479

(1st

Dept

2007). On reply to the

motion to

dismiss , S C

Telecom

st ll does

not address

exac t ly how Vega

breached

the two

agreements t ha t he

ente red

i n to with

S C

Telecom. S C

Telecom

avers

t ha t , for

example, Vega br ibed an employee

for use r

names

-11-

1]


13/22

and passwords, t h rea t ened to ca l l S C

c l i en t s

and

t ll them to

defau l t ,

t ha t

he took f i l e s and

t ha t

he

made

defamatory

i n t e rne t

post ings a f t e r he was t e rmina ted .

However,

none

o f

these ac t ions

cons t i tu t es

a

breach

of the

agreements.

The

agreements

se t fo r tB t ha t

Vega

was

not

to

discuss S C Telecom's

co n f id en t i a l

in fo rmat ion , and t h a t

he was

not al lowed

to

speak

to c e r t a i n e n t i t i e s a f t e r he

was

t e rmina ted .

Not only does S C Telecom

specula te

t h a t Vega c a l l e d c l i e n t s ,

even

if he did , S C

Telecom only

specu la t e s t ha t Vega t o l d the

c l i e n t s

co n f id en t i a l

informat ion or

t r ade

se c re t s

about S C

Telecom. See

e g Gordon v Dino e

Lauren t i i s Corp. 141

AD2d

435,

436

(1st Dept 1988)

( These vague and

conclusory a l l e g a t i o n s

are i n s u f f i c i e n t

to sus ta in

a

breach o f co n t r ac t cause of

ac t ion ) .

Moreover, even if Vega somehow breached

the

agreements , the

breach

of

con t rac t

cause

o f

ac t ion

musf be

dismissed

b ~ c u s e

S C

Telecom f a i l s to se t fo r th

how

it was

damaged

by Vega 's ac t ions .

I t s c la ims regard ing lo s s

of

bus iness a f t e r Vega

a l l eg ed ly

con tac ted

c l i en t s or pos ted comments onl ine , a re e n t i r e l y

specula t ive .

[T]he

plead ings must se t fo r th fac t s showing the

damage upon

which

the

ac t ion i s based .

Id ;

see a lso

Arcidiacono

v Maizes

Maizes

LLP

8 AD3d

119,

120

(1st

Dept

2004)

( P l a i n t i f f s '

c la im[] fo r breach of co n t r ac t

.

[was]

properly

dismissed

by

reason o f

t he i r f a i l u r e to

a l l eg e

any

bas i s

-12-

2]


14/22

for an

award

of damages or to plead fac t s

from which

damages

a t t r i bu t a b l e to defendants ' conduct

might be reasonab ly i n f e r r e d

[ in te rna l

c i t a t i o n s omi t t ed ] ) .

Breach

of

the

Covenant

of

Good Fai th

and

Fa i r

Deal ing ,

Breach

of

Fiduciary Duty, Promissory Estopoel and Unjust Enrichment:

S C

Telecom

s t a t e s tha t , i r r e sp e c t i v e o f the agreements

s igned by Vega, Vega was bound to

S C

Telecom

by a covenant of

good fa i th and f a i r

dea l ing

. in connect ion with

the

adminis t ra t ion

and implementat ion of the sub jec t

Agreement .

Complaint ,

61.

Clear ly ,

the

a l l eged

breach

o f

the

covenant

of

good f a i t h

and f a i r

dea l ing

i s premised on

the same

s e t o f fac t s

tha t

Vega

breached

his

ob l iga t ions

under the

agreements .

As a

resu l t ,

t h i s

cause of ac t ion , as well as the

ones

fo r breach o f

f iduc ia ry

duty and

unjus t enr ichment a re based on t he same

a l lega t ions and seek the same damages as the breach of con t rac t

.

cla im[]

[and

should

be]

dismissed

as

d u p l i c a t i v e .

Ullmann

Schneider

Lacher

Love l l -Tay lor P.C.

121 AD3d

415,

416 (1st

Dept 2014) .

Moreover, where the re i s an

express

co n t r ac t

no

recovery

can

be had

on a theory o f implied

con t rac t

.

Without in

some

manner removing

the express

con t rac t

.

. t

i s

not

poss ib le to

ignore

t

and

proceed

in

quantum

merui t

[ i n t e rn a l

quota t ion

marks

and

c i t a t i o n

omi t ted ] .

SAA-A Inc. Morgan S tan ley

Dean Wit t e r

Co. , 281

AD2d 201, 203 (l5t Dept 2001). Here, the agreements

-13-

3]


15/22

s igned by Vega when he

ente red

in to employment with S C Telecom,

which

are va l id and enforceab le

con t rac t s , prec lude

S C

Telecom's

cla im a l leg ing unjus t enrichment .

In

addi t ion ,

S C

Telecom

cannot

success fu l ly

plead

a

cause

of

ac t ion for

promissory

es toppe l

because

the

ex is tence

o f va l id

and enforceab le wri t t en con t rac t s prec ludes

recovery

under the

causes of

ac t ion sounding in

promissory

es toppe l

and

unjus t

enrichment , which a r i s e out of

the

same sub jec t m a t t e r .

Grossman v ew York Li f e

Ins. Co., 90 AD3d

990, 991-992

(2d Dept

2011)

In sum,

S C Telecom has

- f a i l ed

to sus ta in

causes

o f

ac t ion

for breach of the covenant of good f a i t h , breach of f iduc ia ry

duty,

unjus t

enrichment

and

promissory

es toppe l , and t he se

c la ims

are dismissed.

Tor t ious In te r fe rence With Cont rac t :

The

elements

of a

cause

of

ac t ion to

recover

damages

fo r

t o r t ious in t e r fe rence

with

con t rac t

are

the ex is tence o f a va l id

con t rac t between t

and

a

t h i r d par ty , the defendan t ' s knowledge

of

t ha t

con t rac t ,

t he de fendan t ' s i n t en t iona l procurement of the

t h i rd

par t y ' s

breach of

t ha t

con t rac t without j u s t i f i c a t i o n , and

damages.

MV

Col l i s ion

Inc v Al l s t a t e

Ins.

Co. ,

129 AD3d

1041, 1043 (2d Dept 2015).

S C

Telecom a l l eg es

t ha t

Vega

i n t e r f e r e d

with i t s con t rac t s

and

business r e l a t i o n sh i p s . However, the only

example

given,

-14-

4]


16/22

which was

s e t

fo r th here in

the

fac t s , i s when

Vega

a l l e g e d l y

to ld

Allred to defau l t on

i t s

loans . As

a

r e s u l t o f

the

defau l t ,

S C

Telecom c la ims

t ha t

S C

Telecom's

payment

processo r

su f fe red

damages.

As

S C does

not c la im

t ha t

it

i t s e l f

su f fe red

damages

as a

r e s u l t

of

Vega 's

compla ined-of

ac t ions , it cannot s us t a i n

a

cause

of

ac t ion

for

. t o r t i ous in t e r fe rence with

a

cont rac t and

t h i s cla im

must

be dismissed . Moreover, S C Telecom s t a t ed t ha t

Vega

made

t h i s t h r ea t about

c a l l i ng

c l i e n t s

a f t e r he

was a l ready

terminated,

ye t S C

Telecom's oppos i t ion papers

s t a t e

t ha t

p l a i n t i f f

made

t h i s ca l l

to All red

before

Vega

was

t e rminated .

Conversion:

A

convers ion

t akes

place when someone, i n t e n t i o n a l l y

and without

au tho r i ty ,

assumes

or

exerc i ses con t ro l

over

personal

proper ty belonging to someone e l s e ,

i n t e r f e r i ng

with

t ha t

per son ' s r i gh t o f

posses s ion .

Two

key elements

of

convers ion

are

(1)

p l a i n t i f f ' s

possessory r i gh t o r i n t e r e s t in

the

p roper ty and (2)

defendan t ' s dominion over the

proper ty

o r i n t e r f e r e nc e

with it in deroga t ion of p l a i n t i f f ' s r i gh t s

[ i n t e rna l

c i t a t i o n s

omit ted]

u

Colavi to v ew York Organ Donor Network Inc .

8 NY3d

43, 49-50

(2006) .

S C

Telecom

s t a t e s t ha t

Vega s to l e f i l e s from

the of f

i ce

t ha t he

had

l e f t in

the

s t a i rcaseu o f S C Telecom's bu i ld ing .

Schuchatowitz

a f f i rma t ion ,

18.

Evident ly t he f i l e s

remained

a t

S C

Telecom's

of f i ce .

As

S C

Telecom

c la ims

tha t . t he

f i l e s

remained in

the s t a i r we l l

and were not

in

Vega 's

possess ion , Vega

does not

have

dominion over the proper ty .u There i s a l so

no

-15-

5]


17/22

nonspecula t ive

a l lega t ion

tha t t was Vega who l e f t

the

f i l e s

in

the s t a i rw e l l . As a r e su l t , S C

Telecom

has f a i l ed

to

s u f f i c i e n t ly

plead

a cause of

ac t ion

to

recover damages

for

convers ion,

and

t

i s

dismissed .

Slander:

CPLR

3016 (a) provides t ha t [ i ] n an

ac t i o n

for l i b e l

or

s lander , the par t i cu l a r

words

complained

of

s ha l l be

se t

fo r th in

the

complaint .

In addi t ion , [ t ] he

complaint

a l so must

a l lege the t ime, place and manner

of

the fa l se s ta tement and

spec i fy to

whom

t

was

made.

Dil lon

v

i ty

o f

New

York

261

AD2d

34,

38 (1st Dept 1999) .

S C Telecom s t a t e s t ha t ,

upon

informat ion

and b e l i e f , Vega

threa tened to c a l l ex i s t ing c l i en t s and

have

them s top payments.

This

does

not

s a t i s f y

the

pleading requi rements o f

CPLR

3016 (a) ,

as

t

does

not s t a t e

the

pa r t i c u l a r s landerous words t ha t Vega

al legedly

sa id

to these

c l i en t s ,

nor

does

t

se t

fo r th

the

t ime,

place

and

manner

of the

fa l se s ta tement [s ] . Dil lon v i ty o f

ew York 261

AD2d

a t 38. Accordingly

the

cause of

ac t i o n

for

s lander

i s dismissed .

Libel

and

Defamation Per Se:

S C Telecom has accused Vega of pos t ing , or

having o ther s

post ,

four

defamatory reviews of S C Telecom's business on the

s i t e

r ipoff repor t .com. As s e t fo r th in the fac t s , the

pos t ings ,

in

sum,

l abel S C Telecom

as

a scam,

and

complain t ha t S C

-16-

6]


18/22

Telecom does

not

provide

the

loans

as

promised

and

t ha t they

waste the consumer 's t ime and money.

One

of

the

pos t ings

c a l l s

S C

Telecom

crooks, l i a r s and

th ieves .

S C Telecom has

surmised

tha t ,

s ince the

f i r s t

al leged post ing

by Vega,

it

has

su f fe red

a

reduct ion in revenue of a t

l ea s t

55 .

The

spec i f ic

elements

to sus ta in a

cause

o f

ac t ion

for

defamation

inc lude

a f a l s e s ta tement , pub l i shed

without

pr iv i l ege or au thor iza t ion to a

t h i rd

par ty , c ons t i t u t i ng f a u l t

as

judged by,

a t a minimum, a

negligence

s tandard ,

and

it

must

e i the r

cause

spec ia l

harm

or

c o n s t i t u t e

defamat ion

per

s e .

Dil lon v Ci ty o f ew York

261 AD2d a t

38.

Libe l

i s

the

wri t t en

publ ica t ion

about

someone t ha t i s

both

fa l se

and

defamatory .

Klepetko

v Reisman

41 AD3d

551,

551 (2d

Dept 2007).

Statements

c ons t i t u t e

defamat ion

per

se

i

they,

in

re levan t

par t , ( i )

charg(e] p l a i n t i f f with

a ser ious cr ime; ( i i ) tha t

tend

to

i n ju re

ano ther

in his

or

her

t rade ,

business or

profess ion

Liberman v

Gels te in

80 NY2d 429, 435

(1992).

Statements of

opinion, no mat te r how

of fens ive , as opposed

to

s tatements of fac t , cannot be

the

bas i s of a

defamat ion

cla im.

Whether words

are

defamatory i s

a l egal ques t ion

and

( t ]he

words

must be

cons t rued

in the

con tex t

of

the

en t i r e

s ta tement

o r

publ ica t ion as

a

whole,

t e s ted

agains t

the unders tanding

of

the

average reader , and

i not reasonably suscep t ib le

o f a

defamatory

-17-

7]


19/22

meaning, they are not ac t ionab le and

cannot be

made

so

bY a

s t r a ined or a r t i f i c i a l c ons t r i c t i on . Aronson v

Wiersma

65 NY2d

592, 594 1985) . Applying

these

s tandards to

the

presen t

s i tua t ion ,

the

post ings a re

not

ac t ionab le , because .a

reasonab le

reader would view

the

i n t e rn e t

post ings

as gr ievances o f angry

consumers who u t i l i z e d an i n t e rn e t forum as a

way

to express

t he i r

opinions .

The

pre sen t s i t ua t ion

i s s imi l a r to

the

one in Matter o f

Woodbridge Struc tured

Funding LL v issed

Consumer

125 AD3d

508,

508 [1st

Dept

2015]) ,

where an anonymous

speaker pos ted

negat ive

comments about

a

pr iva te f inance / s t ruc tu red se t t l emen t

bus iness

on PissedConsumer.com,

a l leg ing

t ha t the bus iness

f a i l e d

to f u l f i l l i t s adver t i s ing promise,

inc luding s ta tements

such as

p e t i t i o n e r Lie[s] To Their Cl ien t s and w i l l fo rge t about

you

and

a l l

the promises they made to you once you s ign on the

dot ted

l i n e [ i n t e rn a l

quota t ion

marks

omi t ted ] .

The

Court

found

t ha t

the

s ta tements

were not

ac t ionab le ,

hold ing

[ a ] l though

some

of the s ta tements

are

based on undisclosed, unfavorable fac t s

known to

the

wri t e r , the d isg run t led tone, anonymous pos t ing , and

predominant

use

of s ta tements

t ha t

cannot be

def i n i t i ve l y proven

t rue

or

fa l se , suppor t s

the

f ind ing tha t the cha l l enged

statements

a re

only

suscep t ib le

of a

nondefamatory

meaning,

grounded

in

op in ion .

Id. a t

509.

The

Court

fu r the r concluded

in

the Matter o f Woodbridge

-18-

8]


20/22

Struc tured Funding LLC v

i ssed

Consumer (125 AD3d

508),

t ha t

the

business

could not demonstra te

t ha t

t su f fe red i n ju ry

to

i t s

business r epu ta t ion as a r e s u l t of the pos t ings .

S imi la r ly ,

in

the

present

s i t ua t ion , Vega

has provided

o ther di spa rag ing pos t s

about S C Telecom. I t i s e n t i r e l y specu la t ive fo r S C Telecom to

conclude t ha t t l o s t revenue

as

a r e s u l t of po te n t i a l consumers

reading Vega 's

pos t s

and

not because

the

consumers

read

t he o the r

pos ts ,

or

for

o ther reasons .

In addi t ion , s ta tements ca l l ing S C Telecom crooks, l i a r s

and

th ieves a re

not

ac t ionab le .

Courts

have

held

t ha t

express ions such as these a re nonact ionable express ions of

opinion because

[n ]o reasonable

person would conclude

t ha t

ac tua l

c r imina l i ty i s charged by the

e p i the t s

th ieves .

[ in te rna l

quota t ion

marks

omi t ted ] .

ol ish

Am Immigrat ion

Re l i e f Comm v Relax 189 AD2d

370,

374 (1st Dept 1993).

Accordingly, S C

Telecom

cannot

sus ta in

a

cause

of

ac t ion

for

l i be l

or defamat ion per se aga ins t

Vega

o r Vega

Cred i t

and

these

causes

o f ac t ion

are

dismissed.

Trade

Libel :

Trade l i b e l i s the knowing pub l ica t ion

o f

f a l s e

mat te r

derogatory

to

the p l a i n t i f f ' s bus iness o f kind ca lcu la t ed

to

prevent

o thers

from

dea l ing

with

the bus iness

or

otherwise

i n t e r f e r i n g with i t s r e l a t i o n s with o ther s , to i t s

de t r iment

[A]ctual

lo s ses

must be

i de n t i f i e d

and causa l ly

r e l a t e d to the

-19-

9]


21/22

a l leged t o r t i ous

ac t . Waste Di s t i l l a t i on Tech. Blas land

Bouck

Engrs . 136 AD2d 633,

634

2d Dept 1988) . S C Telecom i s

unable

to

e s t a b l i s h t ha t

i t s lo s ses were cau s a l l y

r e l a t e d

to

the

a l leged r ipof f repor t . com pos t ings .

As a

r e su l t ,

t

cannot

sus ta in a cause o f ac t ion

for

t r ade l i be l , and t h i s

cause

o f

ac t ion i s dismissed.

The

cour t

i s aware t ha t Vega moves here on beha l f of h imse l f

and

Vega Credi t . As noted by

S C

Telecom, in New York, pursuan t

to CPLR

321

(a) ,

an LLC must

appear by

counsel in a l l l i t i g a t i o n .

See

e g

Michael

R e i l l y

Design Inc.

Houraney

40

AD3d

592,

593-594

2d

Dept

2007). Vega

i s not

an

a t to rney , and so , cannot

represent Vega Credi t in t h i s

ac t ion .

Vega

r e fe rences

the

exception to

t h i s

ru le

for

smal l cla ims ac t ions pursuan t to NY

City Civ Ct A c t 1809, 1809

A);

however, t h i s s t a t u t e i s

i napp l i cab le

to

the

cur ren t ac t ion .

However,

as no

claim has

been

remotely demonstra ted aga ins t Vega

Cred i t ,

in the i n t e r e s t s

of

j ud i c i a l economy, a l l of the

cla ims

are dismissed as

aga ins t

Vega Cred i t

as

wel l .

Puni t ive Damages:

Puni t ive damages are

permi t ted

only

when a

defendan t ' s

wrongdoing i s

not

s imply i n t en t iona l but evince[s ] a

high degree

of moral tu rp i tude

and demonstra te[s] such wanton dishones ty as

to

imply a c r imina l ind i f f e rence to

c i v i l

ob l iga t ions

[ in te rna l

quota t ion marks and c i t a t i o n omi t ted ] . Ross Louise Wise

-20-

0]


22/22

..

-

Servs . I nc .

8 NY3d 478,

489 2007).

As

the

complaint

does

not

se t

fo r th

any cause

o f ac t ion , the re

can be no c la im for

pun i t ive

damages. Regardless , S C Telecom has

not

a l leged

t ha t

defendants

conduct

r i s e s

to

t h i s

high

l eve l , desp i t e

cla ims

o f

malice.

ON LUSION

Accordingly , t i s

ORDERED

t ha t the motion

of Armando

Vega dismiss ing the

complaint he re in i s gran ted ,

and

the complaint i s dismissed in

i t s

e n t i r e ty as aga ins t Armando Vega and

Vega

Cred i t

Care

LLC

with cos ts and

disbursements

to

sa id

pa r t i e s

as

t axed

by

the

Clerk of

the Court upon

submission of an appropr ia te b i l l of

cos ts ; and t i s fu r the r

ORDERED t ha t the

Clerk i s

d i rec ted

to

en te r judgment

accordingly .

Dated:

ENTER:

-21-

1]

sbc telecom v. vega - nda and ripoff report.pdf

Documents