FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit F
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`AT LAST SPORTSWEAR, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`
`LESLIE BYRON,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Index No. 654327/2022
`
`(Hon. Robert R. Reed)
`Part 43
`
`
`
`
`
`::::::::::
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`:
`:
`-------------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`
`REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`LOEB & LOEB LLP
`John Piskora
`345 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10154
`Tel: (212) 407-4082
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Leslie Byron
`
`23323665
`
`
`
`1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................3
`I.
`PLAINTIFFS’ STATE LAW CLAIMS ARE PREEMPTED BY THE
`COPYRIGHT ACT ..................................................................................................3
`PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS ARE OTHERWISE
`INSUFFICIENTLY PLEADED AND BARRED BY THE
`INDISPUTABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ................................................5
`A.
`ALS’s Breach of Contract Claim Must be Dismissed .................................5
`B.
`ALS’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unfair Competition,
`Misappropriation, and Conversion Claims Are Duplicative and
`Should Be Dismissed ...................................................................................7
`ALS’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unfair Competition,
`Misappropriation, and Conversion Claims Should Be Dismissed
`For Failure to State a Cause of Action .........................................................8
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`2 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aetna Health Plans v. Hanover Ins. Co.,
`116 A.D.3d 538 (1st Dep’t 2014), aff'd, 27 N.Y.3d 577 (2016) ................................................6
`
`Ahead Realty LLC v. India House, Inc.,
`92 A.D.3d 424 (1st Dep’t 2012) ................................................................................................9
`
`Alloy Advisory v. 503 W. 33rd St. Assoc.,
`195 A.D.3d 436 (1st Dep’t 2021) ..............................................................................................6
`
`Apogee Handcraft, Inc. v. Verragio, Ltd.,
`155 A.D.3d 494 (1st Dep’t 2017) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Ardis Health, LLC v. Nankivell,
`No. 11 Civ. 5013 (NRB), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154839
`(S.D.N.Y Oct. 23, 2012) ............................................................................................................5
`
`Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.,
`650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011).......................................................................................................5
`
`Beep Iams v. 10X Mgmt. LLC,
`No. 656266/2019, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2557
`(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. May 29, 2020) ..........................................................................................5
`
`Besen v. Farhadian,
`195 A.D.3d 548 (1st Dep’t 2021) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Burry v Madison Park Owner LLC,
`84 A.D.3d 699 (1st Dep’t 2011) ................................................................................................7
`
`Clavin v. CAP Equip. Leasing Corp.,
`156 A.D.3d 404 (1st Dep’t 2017) ..........................................................................................6, 7
`
`Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`29 N.Y.3d 137 (2017) ..............................................................................................................10
`
`D. Penguin Bros. Ltd. v City Natl. Bank,
`158 A.D.3d 432 (1st Dep’t 2018) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Editorial Photocolor Archives, Inc. v. Granger Collection,
`61 N.Y.2d 517 (1984) ............................................................................................................3, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`Fin. Info., Inc. v. Moody’s Investors Serv.,
`808 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1986).......................................................................................................5
`
`Flag Wharf, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Capital Corp.,
`40 A.D.3d 506 (1st Dep’t 2007) ................................................................................................6
`
`Godfrey v. Spano,
`13 N.Y.3d 358 (2009) ..............................................................................................................10
`
`H2O Swimwear, Ltd. v. Lomas,
`164 A.D.2d 804 (1st Dep’t 1990) ..............................................................................................4
`
`Hertz Corp. v. Avis, Inc.,
`106 A.D.2d 246 (1st Dep’t 1985) ............................................................................................10
`
`Indeck Energy Servs., Inc. v. Merced Capital, L.P.,
`200 A.D.3d 455 (1st Dep’t 2021) ..............................................................................................8
`
`Leonard v. Gateway II, LLC,
`68 A.D.3d 408 (1st Dep’t 2009) ................................................................................................6
`
`Linkable Networks, Inc. v. Mastercard Inc.,
`184 A.D.3d 418 (1st Dep’t 2020) ..............................................................................................7
`
`MatlinPatterson ATA Holdings LLC v. Fed. Express Corp.,
`87 A.D.3d 836 (1st Dep’t 2011) ................................................................................................8
`
`Maurizio v. Rendal,
`222 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep’t 1995) ..............................................................................................5
`
`MBL Life Assur. Corp. v. 555 Realty Co.,
`240 A.D.2d 375 (2d Dep’t 1997) ...............................................................................................8
`
`Meyers v. Fabrics,
`65 N.Y.2d 75 (1985) ..............................................................................................................1, 3
`
`MLGenius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 20-3113, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6206 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) .........................................5
`
`Murphy v. Kozlowska,
`No. 150978/2022, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5923
`(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 2, 2022) ...........................................................................................9
`
`Pergament v. Roach,
`41 A.D.3d 569 (2d Dep’t 2007) .................................................................................................7
`
`Retty Fin., Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,
`293 A.D.2d 341 (1st Dep’t 2002) ..............................................................................................8
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`4 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`Richbell Info. Servs. v. Jupiter Partners, L.P.,
`309 A.D.2d 288 (1st Dep’t 2003) ..........................................................................................7, 8
`
`Richstone v. Bd. of Mgrs. of Leighton House Condo.,
`158 A.D.3d 551 (1st Dep’t 2018) ..............................................................................................6
`
`Saulsbury v. Durfee,
`201 A.D.3d 1318 (4th Dep’t 2022) ............................................................................................8
`
`Schroeder v. Cohen,
`169 A.D.3d 412 (1st Dep’t 2019) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Shapiro v. Ninah Consulting, Inc.,
`No. 654333/2018, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4530
`(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 16, 2019) .........................................................................................6
`
`Shir Capital, LLC v Fortress Credit Advisors LLC,
`No. 160069/2019, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2664
`(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 11, 2020) ..........................................................................................9
`
`We Shall Overcome Found. v. Richmond Org., Inc.,
`221 F. Supp. 3d 396 (S.D.N.Y 2016).........................................................................................5
`
`William Kaufman Org., Ltd. v. Graham & James LLP,
`269 A.D.2d 171 (1st Dep’t 2000) ..............................................................................................7
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ............................................................................................................................3, 4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 301 ............................................................................................................................1, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`5 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`
`Defendant Leslie Byron respectfully submits this reply memorandum of law in further support
`
`of her motion, pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) and 3211(a)(1), (2), (3) and (7), for the entry of an Order
`
`dismissing Plaintiff At Last Sportswear Inc.’s (“ALS”) Complaint, and each cause of action set forth
`
`therein, with prejudice.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiff ALS’s opposition has confirmed this action for what it is: a factually meritless and
`
`unsupportable action intended to harass yet another of ALS’s former employees. The conclusory
`
`allegations of the Complaint, and the attempted arguments of the opposition are no more than hot air
`
`and bluster, utterly devoid of substance. ALS’s repetition of conclusory assertions, without any
`
`factual or legal support, cannot save its claims, each of which must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR
`
`3016(b) and 3211(a)(1), (2), (3) and (7) for a myriad of independent reasons.
`
`First, each of ALS’s state law claims is preempted by the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 301(a))
`
`because: (1) the work (the “digital designs”) to which the claims relate falls within the subject matter
`
`of copyright; and (2) the rights sought to be protected by the asserted claims are equivalent to any of
`
`the exclusive rights granted by the Copyright Act. In opposition, ALS wrongly argues that the alleged
`
`copied “works” – i.e., the digital designs – purportedly do not fall within the subject matter of
`
`copyright. That argument fails because the Court of Appeals has already squarely held in Meyers v.
`
`Waverly Fabrics, 65 N.Y.2d 75 (1985), that fashion designs are subject to copyright. Further, ALS
`
`cannot argue that such designs are not subject to copyright because ALS has, to date, registered over
`
`1900 similar clothing designs for copyright protection by registering these “works” with the United
`
`States Copyright Office and obtaining copyrights based thereon.
`
`Separately, ALS argues (again, wrongly) that its claims purportedly do not seek to protect
`
`rights afforded copyright holders under the Copyright Act, citing random cases where claims were
`
`not preempted, but failing to undertake any description or analysis of the factual claims made in this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`action. As set forth in Ms. Byron’s moving brief and further below, all of ALS’s attempted claims
`
`are based upon the premise that Ms. Byron “copied” ALS’s digital clothing designs and sold
`
`“unmistakable replicas” (i.e., copies or reproductions) in the marketplace. As such, ALS seeks to
`
`protect its claimed exclusive right to make copies of the designs and to prevent others from doing so.
`
`Because these are rights protected under the Copyright Act, ALS’s claims are preempted.
`
`Second, ALS’s attempted “breach of contract” claim fails because ALS is not a “party” to the
`
`purported “agreement” it seeks to enforce. To the contrary, ALS only signed that document as a
`
`“witness” – a fact that is indisputably established on the face of the document itself. Contrary to
`
`ALS’s arguments in opposition, there is no basis to conclude that ALS intended to be a party to the
`
`claimed agreement when it signed it in the capacity of a witness. Rather, the contrary is true. The
`
`ALS representative who signed the document as a “witness,” Sandeep Wagh, is a licensed notary
`
`public and knew fully well the difference between “witnessing” a document and signing a document
`
`as a party (compare Piskora Mov. Aff. Exh. 3 with Exh. 5):
`
`___________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`7 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`Third, each of ALS’s claims otherwise fails as duplicative and/or inadequately pleaded in any
`
`event. The Complaint fails to allege even a single digital design allegedly stolen, nor any damages.
`
`Faced with this reality, ALS implicitly admits its pleading failures by arguing that factual details and
`
`specifics purportedly can be somehow “inferred.” But they cannot. ALS’s failure to allege any facts
`
`to support its claims was purposefully designed to prejudice Ms. Byron, who would have been
`
`otherwise in the position to dismiss the claims based upon documentary evidence. Accordingly, the
`
`Complaint and each cause of action asserted therein must be dismissed.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ STATE LAW CLAIMS ARE PREEMPTED BY THE COPYRIGHT
`ACT
`
`ALS does not dispute that the Copyright Act preempts all state law claims where (1) the work
`
`to which the claim relates falls within the subject matter of copyright; and (2) the rights sought to be
`
`protected by the asserted claim are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights granted by the Copyright
`
`Act. 17 U.S.C. § 301(a); Editorial Photocolor Archives, Inc. v. Granger Collection, 61 N.Y.2d 517,
`
`519-522 (1984) (dismissing state law claims based upon alleged reproduction and sale of films and
`
`photos as preempted by the Copyright Act because the action sought “to enforce rights equivalent to
`
`rights under the Federal copyright laws (US Code, [title] 17, § 106) over which, as to causes of action
`
`accruing after January 1, 1978, the State courts no longer have jurisdiction”).
`
`ALS’s argument that its alleged “digital designs” do not fall within the subject matter of
`
`copyright must be summarily rejected. The New York Court of Appeals has already squarely held
`
`that such fashion designs are the subject of copyright, and that state law claims related thereto may
`
`be preempted. Meyers v. Fabrics, 65 N.Y.2d 75, 78 (1985) (affirming the dismissal of state law claims
`
`as preempted under the Copyright Act; fabric design fell within the subject matter of copyright).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`8 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`Moreover, ALS’s argument is more than a little disingenuous. The Court can take judicial
`
`notice of the fact that ALS has sought and obtained over 1900 copyrights for various “designs.” See
`
`Piskora Reply Aff. at Exh. 1.1
`
`Separately, ALS’s citation to random cases holding that certain types of claims were not
`
`subject to preemption must be disregarded because each case turns on its own factual allegations
`
`(which ALS does not discuss), and the critical inquiry, ignored by ALS, is whether the rights sought
`
`to be protected by the asserted claim are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights granted by the
`
`Copyright Act. Here, preemption bars ALS’s claims because the general and specific allegations of
`
`the Complaint make clear that each claim is based upon the premise that Ms. Byron “copied” ALS’s
`
`digital clothing designs and sold “unmistakable replicas” (i.e., copies or reproductions) in the
`
`marketplace. See Piskora Mov. Aff., Exh. 1 (Cmplt.) at ¶¶ 1-3, 17, 22 (alleging that Ms. Byron
`
`“circulated clothing designs for RDG that were unmistakable copies of ALS’s confidential designs
`
`for 2022”) (emphasis added); id. at ¶ 25 (alleging that Ms. Byron “simply copied ALS’s Fall 2022
`
`line for RDG,” and that RDG’s “clothing line for Fall 2022 … [were] blatant and unmistakable
`
`replicas of ALS’s designs”) (emphasis added); id. at ¶ 43. Thus, ALS seeks to “protect” its exclusive
`
`right under the Copyright Act to make copies of the digital designs and distribute them publicly (see
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106(1)-(3)) and the claims are preempted.
`
`
`1 ALS’s attempted reliance in opposition upon H2O Swimwear, Ltd. v. Lomas, 164 A.D.2d
`804 (1st Dep’t 1990), is entirely misplaced. ALS has alleged that Ms. Byron (and others) purportedly
`copied ALS’s digital designs. Such designs are indisputably the “subject of copyright”, as the Court
`of Appeals held in Meyers and as the First Department acknowledged in H2O Swimwear. See id., 164
`A.D.2d at 806. The H2O Swimwear appeal, however, did not concern copyrightable “designs.”
`Rather, it was alleged therein that the defendant copied clothing and/or physical garments, which are
`considered “useful articles” that are not subject to broad copyright protection. Id., 164 A.D.2d at 806
`(“Since the aesthetic qualities of clothing, including swimwear, can rarely be separable from their
`utilitarian function, garments are generally not accorded copyright protection.”). Because ALS’s
`claims concern the copying of copyrightable “designs,” and not clothing, the claims are preempted.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`9 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`That ALS only seeks to recover for lost sales (which it has failed to allege except in wholly
`
`conclusory terms) arising from RDG’s alleged distribution of “copies” of ALS’s digital designs
`
`further establishes that the claims alleged are preempted. Id., Exh. 1 (Cmplt.) at ¶ 27. The “right”
`
`that ALS seeks to protect by the claims in seeking such relief is the right under the Copyright Act to
`
`exclude others from distributing “copies.” Accordingly, each of ALS’s claims should be dismissed
`
`with prejudice, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (7), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for
`
`failure to allege any legally-viable claim. See Maurizio v. Rendal, 222 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep’t 1995)
`
`(“[R]egardless of how the language in the complaint is couched, the complaint is preempted by
`
`Federal Copyright Act (17 USC § 101 et seq.) and was properly dismissed.”).2
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS ARE OTHERWISE INSUFFICIENTLY
`PLEADED AND BARRED BY THE INDISPUTABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
`
`A.
`
`ALS’s Breach of Contract Claim Must be Dismissed
`
`ALS’s opposition does not (and cannot) dispute that: (1) the purported “Confidentiality Non
`
`Disclosure & Code of Ethics Agreement” that ALS now attempts to enforce was submitted as Exhibit
`
`
`2 See also Editorial Photocolor Archives, 61 N.Y.2d at 521-522 (holding various state law
`claims preempted including unfair competition); Beep Iams v. 10X Mgmt. LLC, No. 656266/2019,
`2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2557, at *11 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. May 29, 2020) (proposed misappropriation
`claim was preempted); Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876, 892, 909
`(2d Cir. 2011) (“[P]reemption bars state law misappropriation claims with respect to uncopyrightable
`as well as copyrightable elements”; “[U]nfair competition, misappropriation, or unjust enrichment
`claims are preempted when based on alleged acts such as distribution or reproduction, despite required
`elements of intent, enrichment, or commercial immorality.”); Fin. Info., Inc. v. Moody’s Investors
`Serv., 808 F.2d 204, 208 (2d Cir. 1986) (“[S]tate law claims that rely on the misappropriation branch
`of unfair competition are preempted.”); MLGenius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-3113, 2022
`U.S. App. LEXIS 6206, *9-10 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (holding that breach of contract claim was
`preempted: “If the promise [in a contract] amounts only to a promise to refrain from reproducing,
`performing, distributing or displaying the work, then the contract claim is preempted.”); We Shall
`Overcome Found. v. Richmond Org., Inc., 221 F. Supp. 3d 396, 412-13 (S.D.N.Y 2016) (holding
`various state law claims preempted including breach of contract claim); Ardis Health, LLC v.
`Nankivell, No. 11 Civ. 5013 (NRB), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154839 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 23, 2012)
`(conversion claim preempted).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`10 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`3 to the Piskora Moving Affirmation; and (2) ALS executed the document only as a “witness” and
`
`not as a party. See Piskora Mov. Aff. at Exh. 3 at 3:
`
`
`
`Because ALS is not a party to the claimed “agreement,” ALS lacks standing and its claim for breach
`
`of contract must be dismissed. See Clavin v. CAP Equip. Leasing Corp., 156 A.D.3d 404, 405 (1st
`
`Dep’t 2017) (“[Movant] lacks standing to enforce the contract, to which it is not a party.”); Aetna
`
`Health Plans v. Hanover Ins. Co., 116 A.D.3d 538, 539 (1st Dep’t 2014), aff'd, 27 N.Y.3d 577 (2016);
`
`Leonard v. Gateway II, LLC, 68 A.D.3d 408 (1st Dep’t 2009); Flag Wharf, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch
`
`Capital Corp., 40 A.D.3d 506, 507 (1st Dep’t 2007) (same).3
`
`In opposition, ALS attempts to argue that the document is an “agreement” – an erroneous
`
`threshold legal presumption belied by the document itself and an illogical starting point for any legal
`
`analysis – and the Court should purportedly be able to construe it in a way to determine the “parties”
`
`thereto. Not true. It is not the Court’s role to re-write a document that is clear and unambiguous on
`
`its face. Shapiro v. Ninah Consulting, Inc., No. 654333/2018, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4530, at *3-
`
`4 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 16, 2019) (dismissing breach of contract claim for lack of privity, holding
`
`that “[p]laintiffs’ contention that [defendant] is a party simply because it is mentioned in the
`
`Agreements is baseless”).
`
`
`3 Given that ALS is only a “witness” to the document, it failed to provide any consideration
`with respect thereto. See, e.g., Richstone v. Bd. of Mgrs. of Leighton House Condo., 158 A.D.3d 551,
`552 (1st Dep’t 2018) (“The contract claim fails for lack of consideration.”). Further, as below, the
`breach of contract claim must be dismissed because ALS has failed to allege any cognizable damages.
`See Alloy Advisory v. 503 W. 33rd St. Assoc., 195 A.D.3d 436, 436 (1st Dep’t 2021) (essential element
`of breach of contract claim is damages resulting from the alleged breach).
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`11 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`Separately, ALS argues that even an “unsigned” agreement can be held to be enforceable “if
`
`there is objective evidence establishing that the parties intended to be bound.” See Opp. Mem. at 9.
`
`But the document here is not unsigned – and the “objective evidence,” the terms of the document
`
`itself, establishes that ALS did not intend to be bound as a party, but signed only as a witness.
`
`Finally, ALS’s argument that the document contains an “error” that the Court should
`
`purposefully disregarded because the “intent” is otherwise clear must similarly be rejected. The
`
`parties’ intent is captured on the document itself, and no “error” has been alleged or could be
`
`established. Sandeep Wagh, a licensed notary public, signed the document on ALS’s behalf.
`
`Because Wagh is a licensed notary public (see Piskora Mov. Aff., Exh. 5), he fully knew the
`
`difference between “witnessing” a document and signing a document as a party. No error can be
`
`claimed, and ALS’s breach of contract claim must be dismissed. See CPLR 3211(a)(1), (3) and (7).
`
`See Clavin, 156 A.D.3d at 405 (1st Dep’t 2017) (“[Counterclaim-plaintiff] lacks standing to enforce
`
`the contract, to which it is not a party.”); Burry v Madison Park Owner LLC, 84 A.D.3d 699, 700 (1st
`
`Dep’t 2011) (affirming dismissal of breach of contract claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)).
`
`B.
`
`ALS’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unfair Competition, Misappropriation, and
`Conversion Claims Are Duplicative and Should Be Dismissed
`
`ALS’s breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion claims
`
`(each alleging that Ms. Byron purportedly misappropriated materials from ALS and provided those
`
`materials to RDG to unfairly compete) must be dismissed as duplicative of ALS’s failed breach of
`
`contract claim (alleging the same). See Richbell Info. Servs. v. Jupiter Partners, L.P., 309 A.D.2d
`
`288, 306 (1st Dep’t 2003) (affirming dismissal of conversion claim which “was properly dismissed
`
`as duplicative of the insufficient contract claims”).4
`
`
`4 See William Kaufman Org., Ltd. v. Graham & James LLP, 269 A.D.2d 171, 173 (1st Dep’t
`2000) (dismissing duplicative breach of fiduciary duty claim); Pergament v. Roach, 41 A.D.3d 569,
`571 (2d Dep’t 2007) (same); Linkable Networks, Inc. v. Mastercard Inc., 184 A.D.3d 418, 418 (1st
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`12 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`ALS attempts to argue in opposition that its claims should not be dismissed as duplicative,
`
`claiming that it would be improper to do so “where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of
`
`contract.” See Opp. Mem. at 13. But there is no such “bona fide dispute” here. The parties agree –
`
`and do not dispute – that the written “Confidentiality Non Disclosure & Code of Ethics Agreement”
`
`submitted as Exhibit 3 to the Piskora Moving Affirmation is the document upon which the claims are
`
`based. However, as above, that document is not enforceable as a “contract” by ALS, who is not a
`
`party thereto. Accordingly, ALS’s remaining claims must be dismissed as duplicative. See Richbell
`
`Info. Servs., 309 A.D.2d at 306 (1st Dep’t 2003) (affirming dismissal of claim that was “duplicative
`
`of the insufficient contract claims”); Retty Fin., Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 293
`
`A.D.2d 341, 341 (1st Dep’t 2002) (“Plaintiff's conversion and breach of fiduciary duty claims were
`
`also properly dismissed, since they are duplicative of the [dismissed] breach of contract cause of
`
`action.”)
`
`C.
`
`ALS’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unfair Competition, Misappropriation, and
`Conversion Claims Should Be Dismissed For Failure to State a Cause of Action
`
`Finally, each of ALS’s claims are insufficiently pleaded and must be dismissed, pursuant to
`
`CPLR 3016(b) and 3211(a)(7), because: (1) ALS has failed to allege or identify any trade secret,
`
`digital design, or article of clothing purportedly misappropriated or converted; and (2) ALS has not
`
`alleged any cognizable damages caused by any purportedly wrongful conduct in any event. See CPLR
`
`3016(b) and 3211(a)(7); see also MatlinPatterson ATA Holdings LLC v. Fed. Express Corp., 87
`
`
`Dep’t 2020) (affirming dismissal of claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition,
`misappropriation of ideas, and unjust enrichment as being “entirely based on alleged conduct that is
`proscribed by” contract and duplicative of plaintiff’s contract claim); Indeck Energy Servs., Inc. v.
`Merced Capital, L.P., 200 A.D.3d 455, 457 (1st Dep’t 2021) (affirming dismissal of claim for
`misappropriation of trade secrets as duplicative); see also Saulsbury v. Durfee, 201 A.D.3d 1318,
`1323 (4th Dep’t 2022) (affirming dismissal of tort claims, including unfair competition, as
`duplicative); MBL Life Assur. Corp. v. 555 Realty Co., 240 A.D.2d 375 (2d Dep’t 1997) (dismissing
`conversion claim as duplicative).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`13 of 17
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2023 04:42 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/21/2022 01:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
`
`
`INDEX NO. 652369/2022
`INDEX NO. 654327/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2023
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2022
`
`A.D.3d 836, 839 (1st Dep’t 2011) (“[T]he complaint ‘must contain allegations concerning each of the
`
`material elements necessary to sustain recovery under a viable legal theory.’”) (citation omitted).
`
`As to the lack of any factual allegation identifying any of the digital designs or physical
`
`property allegedly “stolen” by Ms. Byron, ALS argues (wrongly) that such details can somehow be
`
`determined by “inference.” See Opp. Mem. at 14. Not true. The failure to allege adequate facts of
`
`the alleged theft mandates the dismissal of ALS’s claims.5
`
`Implicitly admitting that the Complaint fails to identify the allegedly “stolen” items by Ms.
`
`Byron, ALS attempts to rely upon a series of e-mails (not quoted or attached to the Complaint nor
`
`submitted in opposition, and are unavailable to Ms. Byron) which relate to ALS’s claims of theft
`
`against Mr. DeBello. These e-mail references do not save ALS’s Complaint, as they fail to allege
`
`facts as against Ms. Byron.6 Further, and perhaps the most disingenuous of ALS’s arguments in
`
`
`5 See CPLR 3016(b) and 3211(a)(7); Besen v. Farhadian, 195 A.D.3d 548, 549-550 (1st Dep’t
`2021) (breach of duty, or “misconduct,” is an essential element of claim for breach of fiduciary duty);
`RSSM CPA LLP v. Bell, 162 A.D.3d 554 (1st Dep’t 2018) (affirming dismissal of breach of fiduciary
`duty and breach of loyalty claims on the grounds that plaintiff’s claims of misconduct were
`“insufficiently particularized”); Ahead Realty LLC v. India House, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 424, 425 (1st Dep’t
`2012) (affirming dismissal of unfair competition claim for failure to allege the “bad-faith
`misappropriation of a commercial advantage”); Apogee Handcraft, Inc. v. Verragio, Ltd., 155 A.D.3d
`494, 496 (1st Dep’t