SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY
————————————————————————X
Ange T. Obashoro and Samuel Obashoro,
Plaintiff,
-against- Index No.: 900843-20
Oreolu Properties LLC; and Adebayo Odutayo
Defendants.
————————————————————————X
NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
You are hereby notified that on ____________ (Date), at ________ (am/pm), Oreolu Properties and Adebayo Odutayo will bring on for hearing their Motion for Summary Judgment. It will be based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Motion for Summary Judgment, exhibits adduced and oral arguments presented during the hearing of the Motion.
Dated this _____ day of July, 2023.
Respectfully Submitted,
Adebayo Odutayo,
Defendant in pro per
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY
————————————————————————X
Ange T. Obashoro and Samuel Obashoro,
Plaintiff,
-against- Index No.: 900843-20
Oreolu Properties LLC; and Adebayo Odutayo
Defendants.
————————————————————————X
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NOW COME Oreolu Properties, LLC and Adebayo Odutayo, Defendants, and hereby file this Motion for Summary Judgment, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
- Defendants’ Statement of Material Undisputed Facts
- The plaintiffs and defendants in this case were partners in the ownership and management of several properties.
- The plaintiffs initially wanted to acquire the properties, but they did not reside in the area, so they asked the defendants, who were local, to buy the properties and oversee their restoration. This arrangement made the parties partners in the ownership and management of the properties.
- As time went on, the plaintiffs offered a loan of approximately $130,000.00 to the defendants to help them pay off one of the properties. In return, the plaintiffs took that property as collateral to ensure repayment.
- The loan was repaid, but the plaintiffs did not return the property, which violated the agreement between the parties and constituted fraudulent behavior.
- The plaintiffs have also made false allegations against the defendants, including the claim that the defendants fraudulently endorsed and deposited a check from Erie Insurance Company, amounting to $176,610.22.
- The defendants categorically deny this accusation and assert that there is no evidence to support it.
- In addition, the plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants neglected the properties and breached their fiduciary duties.
- However, the defendants maintain that these claims are untrue. In fact, any neglect that may have occurred was the responsibility of the plaintiffs’ daughter, who had been entrusted with managing the properties based on an agreement with the plaintiffs.
- The defendants have presented evidence to support their claims, including copies of the loan agreement, the check from Erie Insurance Company, and emails and text messages between the parties.
- The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have not provided any evidence to support their allegations.
- Standard for Motion for Summary Judgment
- We recently restated the principles applicable to the disposition of motions for summary judgment in Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs. (46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067-1068): “To obtain summary judgment it is necessary that the movant establish his cause of action or defense `sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment’ in his favor (CPLR 3212, subd [b]), and he must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form. On the other hand, to defeat a motion for summary judgment the opposing party must `show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact’ (CPLR 3212, subd [b]). Normally if the opponent is to succeed in defeating a summary judgment motion he, too, must make his showing by producing evidentiary proof in admissible form. The rule with respect to defeating a motion for summary judgment, however, is more flexible, for the opposing party, as contrasted with the movant, may be permitted to demonstrate acceptable excuse for his failure to meet the strict requirement of tender in admissible form (e.g., Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 N.Y.2d 307; Indig v Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728; also CPLR 3212, subd [f]).”
- We have repeatedly held that one opposing a motion for summary judgment must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact on which he rests his claim or must demonstrate acceptable excuse for his failure to meet the requirement of tender in admissible form; mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient (Alvord v Swift & Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276, 281-282; Fried v Bower & Gardner, 46 N.Y.2d 765, 767; Platzman v American Totalisator Co., 45 N.Y.2d 910, 912; Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 N.Y.2d 285, 290).
- ARGUMENT
- The defendants argue that the plaintiffs have engaged in fraudulent behavior by failing to return the property upon the loan’s repayment. This act constitutes a clear violation of the partnership agreement between the parties.
- Under the partnership agreement, the plaintiffs and defendants had mutually agreed that the property would serve as collateral until the loan was repaid.
- The defendants fulfilled their obligations under the agreement by promptly repaying the loan, yet the plaintiffs disregarded their commitment to return the property.
- By retaining the property without lawful justification, the plaintiffs have engaged in fraudulent behavior, breaching the trust and confidence that underpinned the partnership relationship. Such actions warrant the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiffs’ false allegations regarding the defendants’ fraudulent endorsement and deposit of the check from Erie Insurance Company lack any supporting evidence. The defendants categorically deny these allegations and assert that they have not engaged in any fraudulent activities.
- It is a well-established principle in law that the burden of proof rests with the party making the allegations. In this case, the plaintiffs bear the burden of substantiating their claim that the defendants fraudulently endorsed and deposited the check.
- The defendants maintain that they have provided substantial evidence to demonstrate the falsity of the plaintiffs’ claims. This evidence includes documented communication exchanges between the parties, which unequivocally indicate that the defendants did not engage in any fraudulent activities with respect to the check from Erie Insurance Company.
- In stark contrast, the plaintiffs have not presented any credible evidence to substantiate their allegations. They have failed to produce any bank records, witness statements, or other documentation to support their claim of fraudulent endorsement and deposit. The absence of evidence further weakens the plaintiffs’ case and strengthens the defendants’ entitlement to summary judgment.
- The defendants fulfilled their fiduciary duties by entrusting the management of the properties to the plaintiffs’ daughter, a decision that was mutually agreed upon and documented in the partnership agreement.
- Any alleged neglect that occurred in the management of the properties was solely the responsibility of the plaintiffs’ daughter and not the defendants. The defendants had no control or authority over the plaintiffs’ daughter’s actions, and any alleged neglect cannot be attributed to them.
- The defendants have presented evidence, such as email and text message exchanges, which clearly demonstrate their diligent efforts to ensure the proper maintenance and management of the properties. These pieces of evidence prove that any alleged neglect was beyond the defendants’ control and responsibility.
- In conclusion, the defendants have presented a strong case for summary judgment. The plaintiffs have failed to produce any credible evidence to support their allegations, and the defendants have presented substantial evidence to support their defense. The defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion for summary judgment.
- Prayer for Relief
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to GRANT this motion for summary judgment, award the defendant such equitable reliefs as this Court deems fair to grant, and award the defendant such further relief as this Court deems proper under the circumstances.
Dated this _____ day of July, 2023.
Respectfully Submitted,
Adebayo Odutayo,
Defendant in pro per
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )