April 1, 2024 Appellate Decisions

April 1, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

Second Department Appellate Division on Monroe Place.
Photo: Rob Abruzzese/Brooklyn Eagle

Share this:

Court decides coffee contract dispute, clears individual of liability

In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division confirmed a decision by the Kings County Supreme Court Justice Reginald Boddie regarding a legal battle over a coffee contract. The dispute was between Regal Commodities and Scott Tauber, alongside other defendants. Regal Commodities claimed that Tauber, in his role as president of Hena Coffee Inc., did not follow through on a deal to buy 500,000 pounds of coffee. They argued that Tauber was personally responsible alongside his company.

Justice Reginald Boddie of the Kings County Supreme Court, who originally presided over the significant contract dispute between Regal Commodities and Scott Tauber. Brooklyn Eagle photo by Rob Abruzzese

The main question was whether Tauber could be personally liable for the contract made by his company, Hena Coffee. The court looked into whether Tauber made it clear he was signing the contract on behalf of Hena Coffee and not in a personal capacity.

Tauber defended himself by showing emails that outlined the agreement between his company and Regal Commodities. These emails made it clear that Hena Coffee was the buyer, indicating Tauber was acting for his company, not himself. The court found this evidence convincing, supported by a demand letter from Regal to Hena Coffee, which treated the company, not Tauber, as the responsible party.

Based on this, the Appellate Division agreed with the initial decision to dismiss the case against Tauber personally. The court explained that someone acting on behalf of a company (an agent) isn’t personally liable if it’s clear they’re doing so for the company (a disclosed principal) and there’s no evidence they agreed to take personal responsibility.

Appellate Division rules on liability in Brooklyn slip-and-fall case

The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, has overturned a decision from the Kings County Supreme Court in the lawsuit of Pierre Souffrant versus M&K Real Estate Associates, LLC, and others. The central legal issue revolved around the liability for injuries Souffrant claimed to have sustained from slipping on black ice in a parking lot owned by M&K Real Estate Associates.

In the appeal, M&K Real Estate Associates and Goodrich Management, LLC contested the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant their motion for summary judgment, which aimed to dismiss the complaint against them. They argued that as an out-of-possession landlord and its managing agent, they were not responsible for maintaining the parking lot in question. Responsibility for snow and ice removal was contractually assigned to A&P Real Property, LLC, which hired Facility Source Northeast Services, LLC for such maintenance.

The appellate court found that the initial motion’s denial due to being filed late was a misjudgment, noting the defendants demonstrated good cause for the delay. On examining the case’s substance, the Appellate Division concluded that M&K and Goodrich were not liable for Souffrant’s injuries. They established that maintenance responsibility, including snow and ice removal, fell to A&P and, by extension, Facility Source. The court ruled that M&K and Goodrich are entitled to contractual indemnification from Facility Source, reversing the lower court’s order and granting summary judgment in favor of the appellants.