M. Marchioni

The plaintiff electrical contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant restaurant owner for unpaid services and materials supplied during a restaurant build-out.

The defendant disputed the contract price, scope of work, and claimed set-offs for alleged deficiencies and incomplete work.

The court found that the parties had formed a binding contract based on the plaintiff's estimate and that the defendant breached the contract by non-payment.

The court allowed a portion of the plaintiff's claimed extras but dismissed the defendant's set-off claims due to a lack of cogent evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded a lien and judgment in the amount of $66,307.50.

The defendants sought an adjournment of a five-day trial because one of the named defendants was scheduled to undergo spinal surgery.

The plaintiffs' counsel refused to consent to the adjournment, demanding medical records and authorizations to speak directly with the defendant's treating physicians.

The court granted the adjournment, finding the plaintiffs' counsel's demands inappropriate and contrary to the principles of professionalism, and ordered that the plaintiffs could not recover costs incurred after being notified of the adjournment request.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a writ of seizure and sale, a notice of garnishment, and a tracing order to enforce a 2013 judgment.

The court established a timetable on consent and scheduled the motion to be heard on August 31, 2021.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a Mareva injunction freezing their assets in a civil fraud action involving alleged fraudulent factoring transactions worth approximately $6.5 million.

The court considered whether the plaintiff continued to demonstrate a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of asset dissipation.

Evidence showed that the moving defendants’ companies received substantial funds from entities involved in the fraud, that explanations for the transactions were unsupported by documentation, and that the alleged sale of a business appeared suspicious.

The court also noted conduct inconsistent with the injunction, including the use of undisclosed bank accounts.

The court held that the plaintiff continued to meet the requirements for a Mareva injunction.