Westbury Recycling, Inc. v. Westbury Transfer & Recycling, LLC

Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 05889Docket: 2020-02364

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 19, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Westbury Recycling, Inc. v. Westbury Transfer Recycling, LLC (2022 NY Slip Op 05889), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York addressed an appeal and cross-appeal concerning an order from February 19, 2020, related to a breach of a licensing agreement. The plaintiffs, owners of a waste transfer facility in Westbury, initiated the lawsuit alleging multiple claims including breach of the license agreement and various torts against the defendants, which included Westbury Transfer and Rizzo Environmental Services, as well as individuals associated with these companies.

The court granted a motion by Rizzo Associates, Inc. and Carol M. Rizzo to dismiss part of the complaint against them but modified the order to deny the dismissal of the sixth and seventh causes of action against Rizzo Associates. The cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned. The Westbury Transfer defendants responded to the complaint with five counterclaims, while the plaintiffs sought to dismiss four of those counterclaims. The decision reflects the court's balancing of the motions and claims presented by both sides, ultimately affirming the modified order with no costs awarded.

The Westbury Transfer defendants filed an amended answer, including four amended counterclaims and a demand for punitive damages, while the plaintiffs sought to dismiss three counterclaims and the punitive damages request. On February 19, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the Rizzo Associates defendants' motion and dismissed four original counterclaims related to breach of contract and business interference, but did not address the amended counterclaims or punitive damages. The plaintiffs appealed. The court's dismissal of the first four causes of action was deemed proper as the complaint did not sufficiently demonstrate that Rizzo Associates or Carol M. Rizzo were alter egos of the other defendants or that they abused their corporate privileges. The dismissal of the fifth cause of action for unjust enrichment was also upheld, as a valid contract governed the dispute. Additionally, the court correctly dismissed the eighth cause of action for private nuisance, noting that the plaintiffs failed to establish how the defendants' actions were substantial, unreasonable, or interfered with their property enjoyment. However, the court erred by dismissing the sixth and seventh causes of action for conversion and replevin against Rizzo Associates, as the plaintiffs had a possessory interest and the elements of conversion were not adequately addressed.

A replevin cause of action requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant possesses property for which the plaintiff claims a superior right. In this case, the plaintiffs established Rizzo Associates' possession of certain containers, affirming their superior claim, but failed to show that Carol M. Rizzo possessed those containers. Consequently, the court correctly granted the Rizzo Associates defendants' motion to dismiss the sixth and seventh causes of action against Carol M. Rizzo. However, it should have denied the motion concerning Rizzo Associates. The plaintiffs' arguments regarding the Westbury Transfer defendants' amended counterclaims and punitive damages are not appropriately before the court, as the Supreme Court did not address these matters. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion related to the dismissal of three amended counterclaims and the punitive damages demand remains unresolved.