Opinion
656690/2016
12-05-2017
Atrium Staffing, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Iridium Development Inc., Defendant.
For Plaintiff Atrium Staffing, LLC Trachtenberg Rodes & Friedberg LLP 545 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 BY: Stephen J. Arena For Defendant Iridium Development Inc. Knox Law Group 1 Penn Plz Ste 2430 New York, NY 10119 BY: Daniel Knox
For Plaintiff Atrium Staffing, LLC Trachtenberg Rodes & Friedberg LLP 545 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 BY: Stephen J. Arena For Defendant Iridium Development Inc. Knox Law Group 1 Penn Plz Ste 2430 New York, NY 10119 BY: Daniel Knox Robert R. Reed, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff Atrium Staffing, LLC ("Atrium") brings this action against defendant Iridium Development Inc. ("Iridium") seeking payment for services provided. Iridium retained Atrium's services to refer candidates for employment. Iridium ultimately hired one of these candidates. According to defendant, the individual voluntarily ceased her employment.
The complaint seeks $30,000, plus interest, attorney's fees, costs and other relief. Plaintiff asserts four causes of action: breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and an account stated. Iridium moves to dismiss the second, third and fourth causes of action, pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), asserting that these causes of action are precluded and/or duplicative of the first. Atrium opposes.
Failure to State a Cause of Action
On a motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint as well as all reasonable inferences that may be gleaned from those facts (Amaro v Gani Realty Corp., 60 AD3d 491; Skillgames, LLC v Brody, 1 AD3d 247, 250, citing McGill v Parker, 179 AD2d 98, 105; see also Cron v Harago Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366). The court is not permitted to assess the merits of the complaint or any of its factual allegations, but may only determine if, assuming the truth of the facts alleged, the complaint states the elements of a legally cognizable cause of action (Skillgames, id., citing Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275). Deficiencies in the complaint may be remedied by affidavits submitted by the plaintiff (Amaro, 60 NY3d at 491). "However, factual allegations that do not state a viable cause of action, that consist of bare legal conclusions, or that are inherently incredible or clearly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to such consideration" (Skillgames, 1 AD3d at 250, citing Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate, 204 AD2d 233). Further, where the defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint based upon documentary evidence, the motion will succeed if "the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" [Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY, 98 NY2d 314, 326 (citation omitted); Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88].
Count II: Unjust Enrichment & Count III: Quantum Meruit
Count II, for unjust enrichment, and Count III, for quantum meruit, must be dismissed. Relief under these causes of action exist to compensate an aggrieved party when there is no enforceable contract (see Parsa v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 143, 148). The existence of valid and enforceable written contract will preclude a plaintiff in a breach of contract action from recovering in quantum meruit (see Aviv Const., Inc. v. Antiquarium, Ltd., 259 AD2d 445, 446-447). Similarly, the existence of the contract between the parties will bar an unjust enrichment cause of action (see Goldstein v. CIBC World Mkts. Corp., 6 AD3d 295, 296). Here, both parties agree that a contract agreement existed between them. Plaintiff has attached that contract as an exhibit to the complaint. Accordingly, Count II, for unjust enrichment, and Count III, for quantum meruit, are dismissed.
Count IV: Account Stated
"An account stated is an agreement between the parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the correctness of the separate items composing the account and the balance due, if any, in favor of one party or the other" (see Chisholm—Ryder Co. v. Sommer & Sommer, 70 AD2d 429, 431). To prevail on a cause of action for an account stated, the plaintiff must show "invoices, receipt by defendant, and lack of objection by defendant for a substantial period of time" (see L.E.K. Consulting LLC v. Menlo Capital Group, LLC, 148 AD3d 527, 528). Here, the complaint alleges that Iridium made partial payments on the contract, that Atrium provided an invoice for the outstanding balance, and no objection was received in a reasonable timeframe thereafter. This is sufficient to maintain the account stated cause of action. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV for account stated is denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as to causes of action two (unjust enrichment) and three (quantum meruit) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as to cause of action four for an account stated is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants shall e-file an answer to the remaining causes of action of the complaint by January 31, 2018; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties by their counsel shall appear for a preliminary conference in Part 43 of this court at 111 Centre Street, Room 581, New York, New York at 9:30 a.m. on March 1, 2018. Dated: December 5, 2017 __________________________________ ROBERT R. REED, J.S.C.