![]() ![]() The first cause of action, asserted against RPZL, claimed breach of contract under the promissory note. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged four causes of action. No payment was made, even after multiple demands. On December 5, 2017, plaintiff elected to call for the repayment of the promissory note. Plaintiff claimed that she never received any payments despite performing work for RPZL. The next day, the parties entered a side letter agreement that provided: (i) plaintiff would have the sole discretion as to whether the promissory note would convert to an equity interest or become due in full at maturity, (ii) plaintiff would act as a consultant for RPZL, (iii) plaintiff would have a position on RPZL’s advisory board, and (iv) in exchange for her role as a consultant, the principal would be increased by 15% to $115,000 and plaintiff would receive compensation in the form of a 15% payment of the principal amount on each anniversary of the promissory note until the time of its conversion. On December 4, 2014, plaintiff made a $100,000 investment in RPZL pursuant to which the parties signed a promissory note for that amount with a maturity date of December 4, 2017. Plaintiff further alleged that Richards and Thornton promised her a paid role in the company and a spot on RPZL’s advisory board in exchange for her investing $100,000. Plaintiff alleged that Richards and Thornton made material misrepresentations about the company’s technology and their plans to open locations across the nation: to wit, (i) RPZL had original patent, pending technology on a machine and process that could bond hair extensions to hair without damaging the hair, (ii) had secured a natural hair source that could provide RPZL with inexpensive and high-quality natural hair, and (iii) was raising additional capital to open up new store locations nation-wide. Defendants Lisa Richards (“Richards”) and Monica Thornton (“Thornton”) own RPZL.Īccording to plaintiff, Richards and Thornton approached Marinelli about investing in RPZL. ![]() Marinelli arose from an investment by plaintiff, Gina Marinelli (“Marinelli”), in defendant, RPZL, LLC (“RPZL”), a company that provides hair extensions and hair styling services. There, the Court denied a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that, inter alia, the verified complaint, which served as an affidavit, conflicted with defendants’ affidavits such that issues of fact were raised and could not be resolved. The impact of a verified pleading on a motion for summary judgment was recently considered by the court in Marinelli v. The reason: the affirmation of an attorney which does not contain evidentiary facts from one having personal knowledge is insufficient to establish the merits of a claim. However, when the pleading is verified by counsel pursuant to CPLR 3020 (d) (3), and not by someone with personal knowledge of the facts, the pleading is insufficient for evidentiary purposes. Once a pleading is verified, all pleadings thereafter must be verified.Ī complaint can be verified by the plaintiff or by counsel. CPLR § 105(u) (“A ‘verified pleading’ may be utilized as an affidavit whenever the latter is required”). The verification makes the pleading sworn and, therefore, is the equivalent of an affidavit and may be used for the same purposes. “A verification is a statement under oath that the pleading is true to the knowledge of the deponent. Typically, though not required in all instances, the plaintiff will verify the complaint. Generally speaking, these documents set forth the claims that are being asserted against the defendant(s). ![]() Under New York law, a party commences a civil action by filing a summons and complaint. Summary Judgment Affidavits Versus A Verified Pleading: Court Finds Triable Issues of Fact Print Article
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |