CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff
commenced the instant action to recover damages for breach of contract in the amount
of nineteen thousand three hundred and thirty six dollars ($19,336). A bench
trial was held before this Court on September 19, 2014, with an OCI Spanish
interpreter present. Plaintiff was represented by counsel and Defendant
appeared pro se.
To
recover damages for breach of contract, Plaintiffmust establish the existence
of a contract, the Plaintiffs performance under the contract, and the
Defendant's breach of the contract, resulting in damages (Kausal v EducationalProducts Information Exchange Institute, 105 AD3d 909 [2d Dept 2013]).
Defendant
and Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of Defendant's beauty
parlor. At trial Plaintiff presented a contract dated February 29, 2012, signed
by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in which Plaintiff purchased "Papi
Caio Beauty Parlor" for $14,000. Plaintiff submitted proof of payment.
Plaintiff argued that the Defendant breached the contract because the Plaintiff
was ultimately unable to procure a new lease from the landlord of the premises
where the beauty parlor was located and Plaintiff claimed she was unable to
resell the business. Defendant argued that he did not breach the contract and
that Plaintiffs failure to procure a new lease from the landlord was the result
of her poor credit, unrelated to the contract of sale. In December 2012,
pursuant to an agreement between the parties,
the Plaintiff returned the keys for the premises to the landlord.
Based
on the testimony adduced at trial and the evidence submitted in support, the
Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant breached the
contract. The contract between the parties consisted of one simple paragraph
and did not contain any contingencies for the sale of the business other than
payment. It did not include provisions subjecting the contract of sale to the Plaintiffs
ability to secure anew lease from the landlord. Plaintiff signed and paid
pursuant to the contract. She obtained ownership of the business and its
accompanying assets and equipment. The lease was not part ofthe contract and
Plaintiff signed and paid without any commitment regarding the status of the
lease. Additionally, when Plaintiff returned the keys to the landlord in
December 2012, it was her obligation to remove any equipment and property that
she owned as the owner of the beauty parlor, assets which she ostensibly
purchased from the Defendant. Plaintiff cannot seek damages for the equipment
which she was free to take but failed to collect at the time that she turned
over the keys to the landlord. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed
to establish a breach of contract and resulting damages.
Accordingly,
Judgment in favor of Defendant. The case is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment