Dial Car Inc. v Kordonsky 2022 NY Slip Op 31067(U) March 31, 2022 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 521900/2021 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman is a case which has been brought previously and is now in its second amended complaint. Supreme Court dismissed the claims against the attorneys as too old.
“The Tuch and Cohen defendants have moved pursuant to CPLR §3211 seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds essentially that it does allege any cause of •action and that many of the claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
The plaintiff is a black car livery service catering to high end clients in Brooklyn. The amended complaint alleges that the four members of the board of directors, Michael Kordortsky,
Jeffrey Goldberg, Alex Sulava and Michael Levin as well as their counsel defendant Tuch and Cohen essentially defrauded Dial and its shareholders and committed corporate waste. Specifically, the amended omplaint alleges the defendants looted a voucher savings program design eel as a retirement funds for shareholders. The amended complaint alleges nine causes of action, for fraud, waste and mismanagement; aiding and abetting fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, compensation recovery, malpractice, disgorgement, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. A similar lawsuit was filed in 2015 seeking similar reliefs. These motions have now been filed.”
“Concerning the Tuch and Cohen defendants, the amended complaint does not allege any improper conduct engaged in by them at all. Paragraph 73 of the amended complaint states that “on July 6, 2010, GOLDBERG with the assistance of KORDONSKY, ATTORNEYS and specifically, defendant, Roberta Pike, LEVIN and SULAVA, was granted an amendment to his March 31, 2003, employment contract which, included a salary increase, retirement benefits and other various additional pecuniary benefit’ (id) and that such amemdment was done without majority shareholder approval pursuant to the by-laws (see, Amended Complaint, I74). The amended complaint argues that the Tuch and Cohen defendants drafted the by-laws in 2010 and were surely aware of the shareholder approval requirement. However, even if the allegations are true and constitute wrongdoing such wrongs occurred in 2010. It is well settled that legal malpractice causes of actions have a three year statute of limitations (CPLR §214 (6), Schrull v. Weis, 166 AD3d 829, 87 NYS3d 228 [2d Dept., 2018}). The events which give rise to any malpractice claims accrued more than three years before the filing of this action. Further, the remaining causes of action are only directed toward
corporate .officers and directors. There are no allegations the Tuch and Cohen defendants were corporate officers at all.”