Opinion
Index No. E2019008635
02-16-2022
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. RYAN P. RICH, JOSEPH ANDERSON, HYPE LABS, LLC, RLF INDUSTRIES, LLC and G&A WAREHOUSE, LLC, Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
ORDER
HONORABLE J. SCOTT ODORISI JUSTICE PRESIDING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Defendants, Ryan P. Rich, Hype Labs, LLC and RLF Industries (the "Rich Defendants") having moved this Court through a Notice of Motion pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action and granting summary judgment on the Rich Defendants' First, Second, Third and Fourth Counterclaims; and
The Rich Defendants having also moved this Court through a Notice of Motion seeking to strike portions of the Reply Affirmation of Glenn M. Fjermedal in Further Support of Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motions submitted by Plaintiff in further opposition to the Rich Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and
Defendants, Joseph Anderson and G&A Warehouse, LLC (the "Anderson Defendants") having moved this Court through a Notice of Motion seeking partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action; and
Plaintiff, Agricultural Development Services, LLC ("Agricultural") having cross-moved for summary judgment on its Third Cause of Action, for dismissal of the Rich Defendants' Counterclaims and for dismissal of the Anderson Defendants' Counterclaims; and
WHEREAS this matter having come before this Court on submission, and Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP (Brian D. Gwitt, Esq., of counsel) having appeared on behalf of the Rich Defendants; Connors LLP (Andrew M. Debbins, Esq., of counsel) having appeared on behalf of the Anderson Defendants; and Davidson Fink LLP (Glenn M. Fjermedal, Esq., of counsel) having appeared on behalf of Plaintiff; and after due deliberation;
NOW, upon reading the Affirmation of Brian D. Gwitt in Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated September 20, 2021, with annexed exhibits; the Affidavit of Ryan P. Rich in Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment sworn to September 20, 2021, with annexed exhibits; the Reply Affirmation of Brian D. Gwitt in Further Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs Cross-Motion dated December 3, 2021, with annexed exhibits; the Reply Affidavit of Ryan P. Rich in Further Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs Cross-Motion sworn to December 1, 2021, with annexed exhibits; the Affidavit of Luke Rich sworn to November 30, 2021; and the Affidavit of Jack Redeye sworn to December 3, 2021; and
NOW, upon reading the Attorney Affirmation of Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. dated September 20, 2021, with annexed exhibits; and the Attorney Affirmation of Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. dated December 3, 2021, with annexed exhibits; and
NOW, upon reading the Affirmation of Glenn M. Fjermedal in Support of Plaintiffs CrossMotion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated October 28, 2021, with annexed exhibits; the Affidavit of Richard Wildman sworn to October 26, 2021; the Affidavit of Joshua Cawley sworn to October 26, 2021, with annexed exhibits; the Reply Affirmation of Glenn M. Fjermedal in Further Support of Plaintiffs CrossMotion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment sworn to December 10, 2021, with exhibit; and
NOW, upon reading the Affirmation of Brian D. Gwitt in Support of Defendants' Motion to Strike Improper Sur-Reply dated December 15, 2021; and the Affirmation of Glenn M. Fjermedal in Limited Opposition to Defedeants' [JA] Motion to Strike dated January 6, 2022;
NOW, and the Court having issued its Decision dated January 25, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 178), and that Decision is hereby incorporated herein and made a part of this Order; it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Rich Defendants' motion to strike is GRANTED in part. The following portions of Plaintiffs submissions are hereby stricken from the record and have not been considered by the Court:
• Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Reply Affirmation of Glenn M. Fjermedal in Further Support of Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and
• The section titled "Defendants Make No Viable Counterclaims Against ADS with Respect to the 55,000 Hemp Seeds" contained in the Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motions.
2. The respective motions for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of action on behalf of the Rich Defendants and the Anderson Defendants are GRANTED, and judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action;
3. Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment on its Third Cause of Action against the Anderson Defendants is DENIED, and summary judgment in favor of the Anderson Defendants on Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action is GRANTED, and judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Anderson Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action;
4. Plaintiff s cross-motion for summary judgment on its Third Cause of Action against the Rich Defendants is DENIED, as questions of fact remain to be proven at trial with respect to Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action against the Rich Defendants;
5. The Rich Defendants' motion for summary judgment on their First Counterclaim is GRANTED, and the Rich Defendants hereby have a judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff as to liability on their First Counterclaim with the amount of damages to be proven at trial;
6. Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment on the Rich Defendants' First Counterclaim is DENIED;
7. The Rich Defendants' motion for summary judgment on their Second Counterclaim is GRANTED with respect to the goods and labor and is DENIED with respect to the hemp seeds because such relief is duplicative of the relief granted on the Rich Defendants' First Counterclaim, and the Rich Defendants hereby have a judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff as to liability on their Second Counterclaim with respect to the goods and labor with the amount of damages to be proven at trial;
8. Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment on the Rich Defendants' Second Counterclaim is GRANTED with respect to the hemp seeds and DENIED with respect to the goods and labor;
9. The Rich Defendants' motion for summary judgment on their Third Counterclaim is GRANTED, and the Rich Defendants hereby have a judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff as to liability on their Third Counterclaim with the amount of damages to be proven at trial;
10. Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment on the Rich Defendants' Third Counterclaim is DENIED;
11. The Rich Defendants' motion for summary judgment on their Fourth Counterclaim is GRANTED, and the Rich Defendants hereby have a judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff as to liability on their Fourth Counterclaim with the amount of damages to be proven at trial;
12. Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment on the Rich Defendants' Fourth Counterclaim is DENIED;
13. Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment on the Anderson Defendants' counterclaims is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.