Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 09:34 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
EXHIBIT I
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
K. L. ORIGINALS CO., LTD.,
Index No.: 604539/2023
Plaintiff,
-against- AMENDED SUMMONS
BCNY INTERNATIONAL, INC., SYNCLAIRE
BRANDS, INC., FUTURE SHOE, INC., EVAN
CAGNER, GLENN UNGER, AND MICHAEL
BRUCE CAGNER,
Defendants.
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintiff’s attorney, at
the address stated below, an answer to the attached complaint. If this summons was personally
delivered upon you in the State of New York, the answer must be served within twenty days after
such service of the summons, excluding the date of service. If the summons was not personally
delivered to you within the State of New York, the answer must be served within thirty days after
service of the summons is complete as provided by law.
If you do not serve an answer to the attached complaint within the applicable time
limitation stated above, a judgment may be entered against you, by default, for the relief demanded
in the complaint, without further notice to you.
The place of venue is Nassau County pursuant to CPLR §503.
Dated: New York, New York
July 12, 2023
SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: _______________________________
Rickin Desai, Esq.
18 East 41st Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 744-9600
rickin@skolnicklegalgroup.com
1
1 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
TO: BCNY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Defendant
25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405
Hicksville, New York 11801
SYNCLAIRE BRANDS, INC.
Defendant
25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405
Hicksville, New York 11801
FUTURE SHOE, INC.
Defendant
25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405
Hicksville, New York 11801
EVAN CAGNER
Defendant
54 Pembroke Drive
Glen Cove, New York 11542
GLENN UNGER
Defendant
101 Aspen Dr E, #101
Woodbury, New York 11797
MICHAEL BRUCE CAGNER
Defendant
33 Etna Lane
Dix Hills, New York 11746
2
2 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
K. L. ORIGINALS CO., LTD.,
Index No.: 604539/2023
Plaintiff,
-against- AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
BCNY INTERNATIONAL, INC., SYNCLAIRE
BRANDS, INC., FUTURE SHOE, INC., EVAN
CAGNER, GLENN UNGER, AND MICHAEL
BRUCE CAGNER,
Defendants.
Plaintiff K. L. Originals Co., Ltd., by its attorneys, Skolnick Legal Group, P.C., for its
complaint herein against BCNY International, Inc., Synclaire Brands, Inc., Future Shoe, Inc.,
Evan Cagner, Glenn Unger, and Michael Bruce Cagner alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff K. L. Originals Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) is a corporation formed under the
laws of the People’s Republic of China that produces and manufactures shoes and other related
material and/or merchandise (the “Goods”).
2. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant BCNY International,
Inc. (“BCNY”) was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York and registered to do business in the State of New York, with a principal place of business
located at 25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405, Hicksville, NY 11801.
3. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Synclaire Brands, Inc.
(“Synclaire”) was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York and registered to do business in the State of New York, with a principal place of business
located at 25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405, Hicksville, NY 11801.
1
3 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
4. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Future Shoe, Inc.
(“Future Shoe”) was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York and registered to do business in the State of New York, with a principal place of
business located at 25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405, Hicksville, NY 11801.
5. BCNY, Synclaire, and Future Shoe will be collectively known herein as, the
“Corporate Defendants”.
6. Upon information and belief, BCNY, Synclaire, and various related affiliates were
engaged in the importing and wholesale distribution of men, women, and children’s shoes and
accessories to retail, discount and department stores throughout the United States. Their affiliate,
Future Shoe, engaged in the internet sales of women and children’s shoes.
7. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants have multiple related
entities, which they use for the sale of their products.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Evan Cagner (“Evan”) is a natural person
with a primary place of residence located at 6 Pleasant Lane, Oyster Bay Cove, NY 11771. At all
relevant times, Evan was the Chief Executive Officer, one of the principal shareholders, and a
member of the Board of Directors of the Corporate Defendants.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Glen Unger (“Unger”) is a natural person
with a primary place of residence located at 101 Aspen Dr E, #101, Woodbury, New York 11797.
At all relevant times, Unger was the Chief Financial Officer, shareholder, and a member of the
Board of Directors of the Corporate Defendants.
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Michael Bruce Cagner (“Michael”) is a
natural person with a primary place of residence located at 33 Etna Lane, Dix Hills, New York
2
4 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
11746. At all relevant times, Michael was a shareholder and the Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Corporate Defendants.
11. Evan, Unger, and Michael will be collectively known herein as, the “Individual
Defendants”.
12. The Corporate Defendants and the Individual Defendants will be collectively
known herein as, the “Defendants”.
13. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, the Individual Defendants
used the Corporate Defendants as a mere instrumentality, agent, alter ego and facade in an attempt
to erect a corporate veil.
14. Upon information and belief, the Individual Defendants caused the Corporate
Defendants to disregard its corporate formalities.
15. Upon information and belief, until they were shut down and ceased doing business,
all the Corporate Defendants share common office space, employees, officers, directors, owners,
bans accounts, address, telephone numbers and fax numbers.
16. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants and the Individual
Defendants intermingled their assets and liabilities.
17. The Individual Defendants operated Corporate Defendants as alter egos of
themselves. The Corporate Defendants were so dominated by the Individual Defendants and the
corporate entitles essentially ignored that the entitles were primarily transacting business on behalf
of its owners, the Individual Defendants, rather than for themselves.
18. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants all act as and are one
economic entity and used the legal fiction of separate legal entities in order to defraud their
creditors.
3
5 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
19. As a matter of equity, each of the Corporate Defendants and the Individual
Defendants should be held jointly responsible and liable for the debts of each of the BCNY to
avoid injustice.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20. On or about March 10, 2019 and March 10, 2020, Plaintiff entered into a series of
agreements with BCNY to supply and deliver the Goods, so BCNY could sell them to potential
customers (the “Agreements”).
21. Pursuant to the Agreements, the agreed upon and reasonable value of the Goods
was $1,289,253.18.
22. Plaintiff provided and delivered the Goods on the types, quantities, dates, and
locations directed by Defendants.
23. BCNY received the Goods and accepted them without objection and did not
return any of the Goods to any of the Plaintiff.
24. Plaintiff has fully performed all of their respective obligations under the
Agreements.
25. BCNY remitted payment in the amount of $28,000.00 to Plaintiff for the Goods;
however, there remains an outstanding balance of $1,261,253.18.
26. BCNY breached the Agreements by failing to timely pay Plaintiff the agreed upon
and reasonable value of the Goods in the amount of $1,261,253.18.
27. Upon information and belief, the Defendants sold the Goods to Defendants’
customers either through the Corporate Defendants or its other related entities.
28. The Corporate Defendants customers made full and final payment (the “Trust
Funds”) to Defendants for the Goods, which amount is a sum greater than the amount due to
Plaintiff for the Goods.
4
6 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
29. Upon information and belief, Defendants applied the Trust Funds heretofore
received by them for a purpose other than the payment of claims to Plaintiff.
30. Upon information and belief, BCNY became insolvent as early as December 31,
2018 but Defendants continued to operate the business by defrauding its vendors and creditors.
The Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. Complaint
31. In a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. (“Rosenthal & Rosenthal”) alleged that Defendants
prepared the submitted fraudulent financial statements to Rosenthal & Rosenthal in an attempt to
obtain certain loan proceeds, and the Rosenthal & Rosenthal discovered that BCNY and Synclaire
had been insolvent since on or about December 31, 2018. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is the
complaint in the case of Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., v. Evan Cagner et. al., Index No.
656710/2020 (NY. Sup. Ct., Dec. 2, 2020). (The “Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint”) [See Exh.
B., ¶3, 49, 21-27, and 29.]
32. In the Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint, Rosenthal & Rosenthal alleges that their
institution engaged in a sophisticated business relationship with both Defendants whereby the
Rosenthal & Rosenthal provided purchase order financing to BCNY and Synclaire for the
purchase of inventory for BCNY and Synclaire. Pursuant to their agreement, Rosenthal &
Rosenthal required Defendants to provide them with certain certified financial documents
illustrating the financial state of the business.
33. Evan, Unger, and Michael were alleged to have misrepresented the financial
statements of BCNY and Synclaire to Rosenthal & Rosenthal for several years by materially
overstating the value of BCNY and Synclaire’s assets and downplaying BCNY and Synclaire’s
liabilities via certified writing, thereby inducing Rosenthal & Rosenthal to provide funds on
5
7 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
financing.
34. The Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint further alleges that Defendants attempted
to cover losses of BCNY and Synclaire to Future Shoes in order to obtain purchase order
financing from Rosenthal & Rosenthal.
35. Moreover, the Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint further alleges that Defendants,
in an attempt to defraud Rosenthal & Rosenthal, assigned accounts payable to a newly formed
entity, in order to obtain financing.
36. As such, upon information and belief, Defendant have multiple entities and used
said entities merely as an instrumentality to defraud its creditors and potential creditors.
The Wells Fargo Bank Complaint
37. In a complaint filed in the Eastern District Court of New York, Wells Fargo Bank
(“Wells Fargo”) alleged that Defendants prepared the submitted fraudulent financial statements to
Well Fargo in an attempt to obtain certain loan proceeds, and the Wells Fargo discovered that
BCNY and Synclaire had been insolvent since on or about December 31, 2018. Annexed hereto
as Exhibit A is the complaint in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. Cagner,
Case 2:21-cv-00559-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y Feb. 2, 2021). (The “Wells Fargo Complaint”) [See
Exh. A., ¶18, 19, 21-27, and 29.]
38. In the Wells Fargo Complaint, Wells Fargo alleges that their institution engaged
in a sophisticated business relationship with both BCNY and Synclaire where the plaintiff
purchased all the accounts receivables owned by BCNY and Synclaire and advanced money to
BCNY and Synclaire based on a formula which factored in certain assets of BCNY and Synclaire.
Pursuant to their agreement, Wells Fargo required BCNY/Synclaire to provide them with certain
certified financial documents illustrating the financial state of the business.
6
8 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
39. Defendants Evan and Unger were alleged to have misrepresented the financial
statements of BCNY and Synclaire to Wells Fargo for several years by materially overstating the
value of BCNY and Synclaire assets via certified writing, thereby inducing Wells Fargo to
provide funds on credit far beyond what was appropriate under their initial agreement and
borrowing formula.
40. Upon information and belief, based on the Rosenthal & Rosenthal and Wells
Fargo Complaint, Defendants knew or should have known that BCNY was insolvent and did not
have the financial means to pay its debts since on or about December 31, 2018.
41. Plaintiff did not have the same access to BCNY’s financial information that
Rosenthal & Rosenthal and Wells Fargo had and only discovered BCNY’s insolvency from the
Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint and the Wells Fargo Complaint.
42. Upon information and belief, BCNY became insolvent as early as December 31,
2018 but Defendants continued to operate the business by defrauding its vendors and creditors.
43. The Individual Defendants knew that Plaintiff could not have discovered BCNY’s
insolvency, and as such, deliberately made material misrepresentations to Plaintiff regarding
BCNY’s ability to make payments in order to induce Plaintiff to continue to accept order and
supply the Goods to their detriment.
44. Plaintiff delivered invoices to BCNY for the products that Defendants ordered.
The invoices remained largely unpaid with an outstanding balance of $1,261,253.18 as of March
10, 2020.
45. Upon information and belief, based on the circumstances of the financial state of
BCNY, the Individual Defendants knew or should have known BCNY would not be able to make
any payments towards the unpaid invoice balance or the Goods that it continued to order from
7
9 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
Plaintiff.
46. Prior to and/or during the BCNY’s business transactions with Plaintiff, the
Individual Defendants caused Plaintiff to rely on statements relating the BCNY’s financial
strength and security, which the Individual Defendants knew to be untrue when they were made
and said false statements were made with the Individual Defendants specific intent to cause
Plaintiff to detrimentally rely thereon, as part of the Individual Defendants scheme to defraud the
Corporate Defendants vendors by converting their Goods and using the proceeds for their own
person benefit, including towards payment of their personal debts, including the debts from
Rosenthal & Rosenthal and Wells Fargo and stripping the Corporate Defendants of assets, closing
its doors, and leaving it judgment proof and its vendors unpaid.
47. Plaintiff determinately relied upon said false statements and shipped the Goods to
BCNY and has been damaged thereby having not been paid for most of the Goods.
48. Despite due demand, Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the sum
of $1,261,253.18.
49. In total, Defendants have defrauded Plaintiff and have been unjustly enriched in
the combined sum of $1,261,253.18 for unpaid balance of the Goods manufactured, shipped, and
delivered to Defendants.
AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraudulent Inducement)
50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
51. Defendants operated BCNY/Synclaire as alter egos of themselves. The corporate
entities were so dominated by Defendants and the corporate entitles essentially ignored that the
entitles were primarily transacting business on behalf of its owners, the Defendants, rather than
8
10 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
for itself.
52. Defendants made: (1) material misrepresentations of a fact; (2) with knowledge of
its falsity; (3) with an intent to induce reliance of Plaintiffs; (4) Plaintiff justifiably relied on
these intentionally false representations, and (5) Plaintiff sustained damages.
53. Defendants knew or should have known that BCNY/Synclaire was insolvent since
on or about December 31, 2018.
54. Plaintiffs could not have discovered the insolvency of Defendants’ business, and
as such justifiably relied on the false information provided by Defendants.
55. As a result of Plaintiff’s justifiable reliance, the materially false representations
made by Defendants while knowing the falsity of the representations, Plaintiff suffered damages
in an amount no less than $1,261,253.18 plus pre-judgment interest and other damages.
56. Because Defendants exercised complete dominion of BCNY/Synclaire and such
domination was used to commit the fraudulent scheme described above which caused Plaintiff’s
damage, Defendants should be held personally liable.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of the Agreements)
57. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
58. Defendants requested Plaintiff provide the Goods pursuant to the terms of the
Agreement.
59. Defendants agreed to pay for the Goods at an agreed upon reasonable price of
$1,261,253.18.
60. Plaintiff duly performed all of the terms and conditions of the Agreements and all
of the Goods have delivered to Defendants on or before March 22, 2020.
9
11 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
61. Defendants accepted the Goods without objection and Defendants have not
returned any of the Goods to Plaintiff.
62. Despite due demand for payment in full, Defendants breached the Agreement by
failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff for the agreed upon reasonable value of the Goods in the
amount of $1,261,253.18.
63. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,261,253.18,
interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Action for Payment for Goods Sold and Delivered)
64. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
65. Plaintiff provided the Goods to Defendants.
66. The aforesaid unpaid Goods sold and delivered to Defendants are valued at a
reasonable price of $1,261,253.18.
67. Plaintiff demanded payment of said sum and Defendants have failed and refused
to make payment of said amount.
68. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,261,253.18,
interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Account Stated)
69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
70. That heretofore, Plaintiff rendered to Defendants, full and true accounts of the
indebtedness owing by Defendants as a result of the Agreements, in an amount as hereinabove set
10
12 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
forth which account statements were delivered to and accepted without objection by Defendants
resulting in an account stated for the amount set forth above.
71. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $1,261,253.18,
interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
72. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
73. At Defendants’ express and/or implied request and to the benefit of Defendant,
Plaintiff provided Goods for which Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compensation.
74. The reasonable value of the unpaid Goods provided by Plaintiff is $1,261,253.18.
75. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $1,261,253.18,
interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
76. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
77. Defendants were under a fiduciary duty to distribute and pay Plaintiff from the
Trust Funds.
78. Defendants knowingly breached their fiduciary duty to and intentionally caused
damage to Plaintiff by failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff the sum due to Plaintiff for the Goods
from the Trust Funds.
79. That by breach of their fiduciary owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been damaged in
the amount of $1,261,253.18 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees.
11
13 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
80. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $1,261,253.18,
interest thereon from March 10, 2020, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and
disbursements.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Constructive Trust)
81. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
82. The Trust Funds equal to the amount outstanding and unpaid to Plaintiff for the
Goods constitutes trust proceeds to which Plaintiff is the beneficiary.
83. Upon Defendants’ receipt of the Trust Funds, Defendants became the trustee of
the constructive trust of said Trust Funds and thereby owed a fiduciary duty to pay said Trust
Funds to Plaintiff.
84. Defendants, as trustee, promised to pay Plaintiff the amount unpaid for the Goods.
85. Defendants caused Plaintiff to rely on Defendants’ promises of payment to
Plaintiff’s detriment.
86. Defendants breached said constructive trust by failing to remit the sum of
$1,261,253.18 to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff due demand therefore.
87. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $1,261,253.18,
interest thereon from March 10, 2020, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and
disbursements.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conversion)
88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
12
14 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
89. Plaintiff are entitled to payment from Defendants for the full amount demanded
pursuant to the terms of the Agreements and/or for the Goods.
90. Upon information and belief, Defendants received the Trust Funds from
Defendants’ customers directly relating to Plaintiff delivery of the Goods and the sum of the Trust
Funds is greater than the outstanding amount due to Plaintiff pursuant to the Agreements.
91. $1,261,253.18 of the Trust Funds is rightfully the property of the Plaintiff and/or
Plaintiff has immediate superior rights of possession to Defendants of $1,261,253.18 of the Trust
Funds.
92. Despite Plaintiff demands for the amounts due from Defendants under the
Agreements and Defendants’ receipt of the Trust Funds, Defendants have failed and refused to
pay Plaintiff the sum of $1,261,253.18.
93. Defendants have wrongfully and without authorization converted all of the Trust
Funds to their own use.
94. Defendants’ conversion of the Trust Funds and its continued refusal to remit
$1,261,253.18 of said amount to Plaintiff was and is willful and malicious and said conduct is
egregious and directed at Plaintiff and, upon information and belief, is part of a pattern of similar
conduct directed at all of Defendants’ suppliers.
95. By reason of the above, Plaintiff has sustained damages in the sum of
$1,261,253.18 plus interest thereon from March 10, 2020, together with Plaintiff reasonable
attorneys’ fees, and the costs and disbursements related to this Action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, requests judgment against Defendants as follows:
13
15 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
(i) on the first cause of action of the complaint for breach of agreements, Plaintiff request
judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March
10, 2020, and costs and disbursements.
(ii) on the second cause of action of the complaint for action for payment for goods sold
and delivered, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants in the sum of
$1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements.
(iii) on the third cause of action of the complaint for account stated, Plaintiff request
judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March
10, 2020, and costs and disbursements.
(iv) on the fourth cause of action of the complaint for unjust enrichment, Plaintiff request
judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March
10, 2020, and costs and disbursements.
(v) on the fifth cause of action of the complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff
request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from
March 10, 2020 Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements.
(vi) on the sixth cause of action of the complaint for breach of constructive trust, Plaintiff
request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from
March 10, 2020, Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements.
(vii) on the seventh cause of action of the complaint for conversion, Plaintiff request
judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March
10, 2020, Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements.
14
16 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
(viii) on the eighth cause of action of the complaint for conversion, Plaintiff request judgment
against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020,
Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements.
(ix) on for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
July 12, 2023
SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: _______________________________
Rickin Desai, Esq.
18 East 41st Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 744-9600
rickin@skolnicklegalgroup.com
15
17 of 18
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024
07/12/2023 09:34
01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93
8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024
07/12/2023
ATTORNEY’S VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
I, the undersigned, am an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State,
and say that:
I am one of the attorneys of record for plaintiff K. L. Originals Co., Ltd. I have read the
foregoing Amended Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof and the same are true to
my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and
belief and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I make this Verification instead of plaintiff K. L. Originals Co., Ltd. because it has an office
outside the County wherein your deponent maintains his office.
Dated: New York, New York
July 12, 2023
SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: _______________________________
Rickin Desai, Esq.
18 East 41st Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 744-9600
rickin@skolnicklegalgroup.com
16
18 of 18
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 09:34 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 EXHIBIT I FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU K. L. ORIGINALS CO., LTD., Index No.: 604539/2023 Plaintiff, -against- AMENDED SUMMONS BCNY INTERNATIONAL, INC., SYNCLAIRE BRANDS, INC., FUTURE SHOE, INC., EVAN CAGNER, GLENN UNGER, AND MICHAEL BRUCE CAGNER, Defendants. TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintiff’s attorney, at the address stated below, an answer to the attached complaint. If this summons was personally delivered upon you in the State of New York, the answer must be served within twenty days after such service of the summons, excluding the date of service. If the summons was not personally delivered to you within the State of New York, the answer must be served within thirty days after service of the summons is complete as provided by law. If you do not serve an answer to the attached complaint within the applicable time limitation stated above, a judgment may be entered against you, by default, for the relief demanded in the complaint, without further notice to you. The place of venue is Nassau County pursuant to CPLR §503. Dated: New York, New York July 12, 2023 SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: _______________________________ Rickin Desai, Esq. 18 East 41st Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 744-9600 rickin@skolnicklegalgroup.com 1 1 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 TO: BCNY INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant 25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405 Hicksville, New York 11801 SYNCLAIRE BRANDS, INC. Defendant 25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405 Hicksville, New York 11801 FUTURE SHOE, INC. Defendant 25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405 Hicksville, New York 11801 EVAN CAGNER Defendant 54 Pembroke Drive Glen Cove, New York 11542 GLENN UNGER Defendant 101 Aspen Dr E, #101 Woodbury, New York 11797 MICHAEL BRUCE CAGNER Defendant 33 Etna Lane Dix Hills, New York 11746 2 2 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU K. L. ORIGINALS CO., LTD., Index No.: 604539/2023 Plaintiff, -against- AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT BCNY INTERNATIONAL, INC., SYNCLAIRE BRANDS, INC., FUTURE SHOE, INC., EVAN CAGNER, GLENN UNGER, AND MICHAEL BRUCE CAGNER, Defendants. Plaintiff K. L. Originals Co., Ltd., by its attorneys, Skolnick Legal Group, P.C., for its complaint herein against BCNY International, Inc., Synclaire Brands, Inc., Future Shoe, Inc., Evan Cagner, Glenn Unger, and Michael Bruce Cagner alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff K. L. Originals Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) is a corporation formed under the laws of the People’s Republic of China that produces and manufactures shoes and other related material and/or merchandise (the “Goods”). 2. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant BCNY International, Inc. (“BCNY”) was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and registered to do business in the State of New York, with a principal place of business located at 25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405, Hicksville, NY 11801. 3. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Synclaire Brands, Inc. (“Synclaire”) was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and registered to do business in the State of New York, with a principal place of business located at 25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405, Hicksville, NY 11801. 1 3 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 4. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Future Shoe, Inc. (“Future Shoe”) was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and registered to do business in the State of New York, with a principal place of business located at 25 Newbridge Road, Suite 405, Hicksville, NY 11801. 5. BCNY, Synclaire, and Future Shoe will be collectively known herein as, the “Corporate Defendants”. 6. Upon information and belief, BCNY, Synclaire, and various related affiliates were engaged in the importing and wholesale distribution of men, women, and children’s shoes and accessories to retail, discount and department stores throughout the United States. Their affiliate, Future Shoe, engaged in the internet sales of women and children’s shoes. 7. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants have multiple related entities, which they use for the sale of their products. 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Evan Cagner (“Evan”) is a natural person with a primary place of residence located at 6 Pleasant Lane, Oyster Bay Cove, NY 11771. At all relevant times, Evan was the Chief Executive Officer, one of the principal shareholders, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Corporate Defendants. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Glen Unger (“Unger”) is a natural person with a primary place of residence located at 101 Aspen Dr E, #101, Woodbury, New York 11797. At all relevant times, Unger was the Chief Financial Officer, shareholder, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Corporate Defendants. 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Michael Bruce Cagner (“Michael”) is a natural person with a primary place of residence located at 33 Etna Lane, Dix Hills, New York 2 4 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 11746. At all relevant times, Michael was a shareholder and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Corporate Defendants. 11. Evan, Unger, and Michael will be collectively known herein as, the “Individual Defendants”. 12. The Corporate Defendants and the Individual Defendants will be collectively known herein as, the “Defendants”. 13. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, the Individual Defendants used the Corporate Defendants as a mere instrumentality, agent, alter ego and facade in an attempt to erect a corporate veil. 14. Upon information and belief, the Individual Defendants caused the Corporate Defendants to disregard its corporate formalities. 15. Upon information and belief, until they were shut down and ceased doing business, all the Corporate Defendants share common office space, employees, officers, directors, owners, bans accounts, address, telephone numbers and fax numbers. 16. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants and the Individual Defendants intermingled their assets and liabilities. 17. The Individual Defendants operated Corporate Defendants as alter egos of themselves. The Corporate Defendants were so dominated by the Individual Defendants and the corporate entitles essentially ignored that the entitles were primarily transacting business on behalf of its owners, the Individual Defendants, rather than for themselves. 18. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants all act as and are one economic entity and used the legal fiction of separate legal entities in order to defraud their creditors. 3 5 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 19. As a matter of equity, each of the Corporate Defendants and the Individual Defendants should be held jointly responsible and liable for the debts of each of the BCNY to avoid injustice. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20. On or about March 10, 2019 and March 10, 2020, Plaintiff entered into a series of agreements with BCNY to supply and deliver the Goods, so BCNY could sell them to potential customers (the “Agreements”). 21. Pursuant to the Agreements, the agreed upon and reasonable value of the Goods was $1,289,253.18. 22. Plaintiff provided and delivered the Goods on the types, quantities, dates, and locations directed by Defendants. 23. BCNY received the Goods and accepted them without objection and did not return any of the Goods to any of the Plaintiff. 24. Plaintiff has fully performed all of their respective obligations under the Agreements. 25. BCNY remitted payment in the amount of $28,000.00 to Plaintiff for the Goods; however, there remains an outstanding balance of $1,261,253.18. 26. BCNY breached the Agreements by failing to timely pay Plaintiff the agreed upon and reasonable value of the Goods in the amount of $1,261,253.18. 27. Upon information and belief, the Defendants sold the Goods to Defendants’ customers either through the Corporate Defendants or its other related entities. 28. The Corporate Defendants customers made full and final payment (the “Trust Funds”) to Defendants for the Goods, which amount is a sum greater than the amount due to Plaintiff for the Goods. 4 6 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 29. Upon information and belief, Defendants applied the Trust Funds heretofore received by them for a purpose other than the payment of claims to Plaintiff. 30. Upon information and belief, BCNY became insolvent as early as December 31, 2018 but Defendants continued to operate the business by defrauding its vendors and creditors. The Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. Complaint 31. In a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. (“Rosenthal & Rosenthal”) alleged that Defendants prepared the submitted fraudulent financial statements to Rosenthal & Rosenthal in an attempt to obtain certain loan proceeds, and the Rosenthal & Rosenthal discovered that BCNY and Synclaire had been insolvent since on or about December 31, 2018. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is the complaint in the case of Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., v. Evan Cagner et. al., Index No. 656710/2020 (NY. Sup. Ct., Dec. 2, 2020). (The “Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint”) [See Exh. B., ¶3, 49, 21-27, and 29.] 32. In the Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint, Rosenthal & Rosenthal alleges that their institution engaged in a sophisticated business relationship with both Defendants whereby the Rosenthal & Rosenthal provided purchase order financing to BCNY and Synclaire for the purchase of inventory for BCNY and Synclaire. Pursuant to their agreement, Rosenthal & Rosenthal required Defendants to provide them with certain certified financial documents illustrating the financial state of the business. 33. Evan, Unger, and Michael were alleged to have misrepresented the financial statements of BCNY and Synclaire to Rosenthal & Rosenthal for several years by materially overstating the value of BCNY and Synclaire’s assets and downplaying BCNY and Synclaire’s liabilities via certified writing, thereby inducing Rosenthal & Rosenthal to provide funds on 5 7 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 financing. 34. The Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint further alleges that Defendants attempted to cover losses of BCNY and Synclaire to Future Shoes in order to obtain purchase order financing from Rosenthal & Rosenthal. 35. Moreover, the Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint further alleges that Defendants, in an attempt to defraud Rosenthal & Rosenthal, assigned accounts payable to a newly formed entity, in order to obtain financing. 36. As such, upon information and belief, Defendant have multiple entities and used said entities merely as an instrumentality to defraud its creditors and potential creditors. The Wells Fargo Bank Complaint 37. In a complaint filed in the Eastern District Court of New York, Wells Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”) alleged that Defendants prepared the submitted fraudulent financial statements to Well Fargo in an attempt to obtain certain loan proceeds, and the Wells Fargo discovered that BCNY and Synclaire had been insolvent since on or about December 31, 2018. Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is the complaint in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. Cagner, Case 2:21-cv-00559-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y Feb. 2, 2021). (The “Wells Fargo Complaint”) [See Exh. A., ¶18, 19, 21-27, and 29.] 38. In the Wells Fargo Complaint, Wells Fargo alleges that their institution engaged in a sophisticated business relationship with both BCNY and Synclaire where the plaintiff purchased all the accounts receivables owned by BCNY and Synclaire and advanced money to BCNY and Synclaire based on a formula which factored in certain assets of BCNY and Synclaire. Pursuant to their agreement, Wells Fargo required BCNY/Synclaire to provide them with certain certified financial documents illustrating the financial state of the business. 6 8 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 39. Defendants Evan and Unger were alleged to have misrepresented the financial statements of BCNY and Synclaire to Wells Fargo for several years by materially overstating the value of BCNY and Synclaire assets via certified writing, thereby inducing Wells Fargo to provide funds on credit far beyond what was appropriate under their initial agreement and borrowing formula. 40. Upon information and belief, based on the Rosenthal & Rosenthal and Wells Fargo Complaint, Defendants knew or should have known that BCNY was insolvent and did not have the financial means to pay its debts since on or about December 31, 2018. 41. Plaintiff did not have the same access to BCNY’s financial information that Rosenthal & Rosenthal and Wells Fargo had and only discovered BCNY’s insolvency from the Rosenthal & Rosenthal Complaint and the Wells Fargo Complaint. 42. Upon information and belief, BCNY became insolvent as early as December 31, 2018 but Defendants continued to operate the business by defrauding its vendors and creditors. 43. The Individual Defendants knew that Plaintiff could not have discovered BCNY’s insolvency, and as such, deliberately made material misrepresentations to Plaintiff regarding BCNY’s ability to make payments in order to induce Plaintiff to continue to accept order and supply the Goods to their detriment. 44. Plaintiff delivered invoices to BCNY for the products that Defendants ordered. The invoices remained largely unpaid with an outstanding balance of $1,261,253.18 as of March 10, 2020. 45. Upon information and belief, based on the circumstances of the financial state of BCNY, the Individual Defendants knew or should have known BCNY would not be able to make any payments towards the unpaid invoice balance or the Goods that it continued to order from 7 9 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 Plaintiff. 46. Prior to and/or during the BCNY’s business transactions with Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants caused Plaintiff to rely on statements relating the BCNY’s financial strength and security, which the Individual Defendants knew to be untrue when they were made and said false statements were made with the Individual Defendants specific intent to cause Plaintiff to detrimentally rely thereon, as part of the Individual Defendants scheme to defraud the Corporate Defendants vendors by converting their Goods and using the proceeds for their own person benefit, including towards payment of their personal debts, including the debts from Rosenthal & Rosenthal and Wells Fargo and stripping the Corporate Defendants of assets, closing its doors, and leaving it judgment proof and its vendors unpaid. 47. Plaintiff determinately relied upon said false statements and shipped the Goods to BCNY and has been damaged thereby having not been paid for most of the Goods. 48. Despite due demand, Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the sum of $1,261,253.18. 49. In total, Defendants have defrauded Plaintiff and have been unjustly enriched in the combined sum of $1,261,253.18 for unpaid balance of the Goods manufactured, shipped, and delivered to Defendants. AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Inducement) 50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 51. Defendants operated BCNY/Synclaire as alter egos of themselves. The corporate entities were so dominated by Defendants and the corporate entitles essentially ignored that the entitles were primarily transacting business on behalf of its owners, the Defendants, rather than 8 10 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 for itself. 52. Defendants made: (1) material misrepresentations of a fact; (2) with knowledge of its falsity; (3) with an intent to induce reliance of Plaintiffs; (4) Plaintiff justifiably relied on these intentionally false representations, and (5) Plaintiff sustained damages. 53. Defendants knew or should have known that BCNY/Synclaire was insolvent since on or about December 31, 2018. 54. Plaintiffs could not have discovered the insolvency of Defendants’ business, and as such justifiably relied on the false information provided by Defendants. 55. As a result of Plaintiff’s justifiable reliance, the materially false representations made by Defendants while knowing the falsity of the representations, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount no less than $1,261,253.18 plus pre-judgment interest and other damages. 56. Because Defendants exercised complete dominion of BCNY/Synclaire and such domination was used to commit the fraudulent scheme described above which caused Plaintiff’s damage, Defendants should be held personally liable. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of the Agreements) 57. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 58. Defendants requested Plaintiff provide the Goods pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 59. Defendants agreed to pay for the Goods at an agreed upon reasonable price of $1,261,253.18. 60. Plaintiff duly performed all of the terms and conditions of the Agreements and all of the Goods have delivered to Defendants on or before March 22, 2020. 9 11 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 61. Defendants accepted the Goods without objection and Defendants have not returned any of the Goods to Plaintiff. 62. Despite due demand for payment in full, Defendants breached the Agreement by failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff for the agreed upon reasonable value of the Goods in the amount of $1,261,253.18. 63. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Action for Payment for Goods Sold and Delivered) 64. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 65. Plaintiff provided the Goods to Defendants. 66. The aforesaid unpaid Goods sold and delivered to Defendants are valued at a reasonable price of $1,261,253.18. 67. Plaintiff demanded payment of said sum and Defendants have failed and refused to make payment of said amount. 68. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Account Stated) 69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 70. That heretofore, Plaintiff rendered to Defendants, full and true accounts of the indebtedness owing by Defendants as a result of the Agreements, in an amount as hereinabove set 10 12 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 forth which account statements were delivered to and accepted without objection by Defendants resulting in an account stated for the amount set forth above. 71. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment) 72. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 73. At Defendants’ express and/or implied request and to the benefit of Defendant, Plaintiff provided Goods for which Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compensation. 74. The reasonable value of the unpaid Goods provided by Plaintiff is $1,261,253.18. 75. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 76. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 77. Defendants were under a fiduciary duty to distribute and pay Plaintiff from the Trust Funds. 78. Defendants knowingly breached their fiduciary duty to and intentionally caused damage to Plaintiff by failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff the sum due to Plaintiff for the Goods from the Trust Funds. 79. That by breach of their fiduciary owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $1,261,253.18 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. 11 13 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 80. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Constructive Trust) 81. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 82. The Trust Funds equal to the amount outstanding and unpaid to Plaintiff for the Goods constitutes trust proceeds to which Plaintiff is the beneficiary. 83. Upon Defendants’ receipt of the Trust Funds, Defendants became the trustee of the constructive trust of said Trust Funds and thereby owed a fiduciary duty to pay said Trust Funds to Plaintiff. 84. Defendants, as trustee, promised to pay Plaintiff the amount unpaid for the Goods. 85. Defendants caused Plaintiff to rely on Defendants’ promises of payment to Plaintiff’s detriment. 86. Defendants breached said constructive trust by failing to remit the sum of $1,261,253.18 to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff due demand therefore. 87. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion) 88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 12 14 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 89. Plaintiff are entitled to payment from Defendants for the full amount demanded pursuant to the terms of the Agreements and/or for the Goods. 90. Upon information and belief, Defendants received the Trust Funds from Defendants’ customers directly relating to Plaintiff delivery of the Goods and the sum of the Trust Funds is greater than the outstanding amount due to Plaintiff pursuant to the Agreements. 91. $1,261,253.18 of the Trust Funds is rightfully the property of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff has immediate superior rights of possession to Defendants of $1,261,253.18 of the Trust Funds. 92. Despite Plaintiff demands for the amounts due from Defendants under the Agreements and Defendants’ receipt of the Trust Funds, Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the sum of $1,261,253.18. 93. Defendants have wrongfully and without authorization converted all of the Trust Funds to their own use. 94. Defendants’ conversion of the Trust Funds and its continued refusal to remit $1,261,253.18 of said amount to Plaintiff was and is willful and malicious and said conduct is egregious and directed at Plaintiff and, upon information and belief, is part of a pattern of similar conduct directed at all of Defendants’ suppliers. 95. By reason of the above, Plaintiff has sustained damages in the sum of $1,261,253.18 plus interest thereon from March 10, 2020, together with Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, and the costs and disbursements related to this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, requests judgment against Defendants as follows: 13 15 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 (i) on the first cause of action of the complaint for breach of agreements, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements. (ii) on the second cause of action of the complaint for action for payment for goods sold and delivered, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements. (iii) on the third cause of action of the complaint for account stated, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements. (iv) on the fourth cause of action of the complaint for unjust enrichment, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, and costs and disbursements. (v) on the fifth cause of action of the complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020 Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements. (vi) on the sixth cause of action of the complaint for breach of constructive trust, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements. (vii) on the seventh cause of action of the complaint for conversion, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements. 14 16 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 (viii) on the eighth cause of action of the complaint for conversion, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,261,253.18, interest thereon from March 10, 2020, Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements. (ix) on for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: New York, New York July 12, 2023 SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: _______________________________ Rickin Desai, Esq. 18 East 41st Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 744-9600 rickin@skolnicklegalgroup.com 15 17 of 18 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 09:34 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 604539/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/23/2024 07/12/2023 ATTORNEY’S VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) I, the undersigned, am an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State, and say that: I am one of the attorneys of record for plaintiff K. L. Originals Co., Ltd. I have read the foregoing Amended Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I make this Verification instead of plaintiff K. L. Originals Co., Ltd. because it has an office outside the County wherein your deponent maintains his office. Dated: New York, New York July 12, 2023 SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: _______________________________ Rickin Desai, Esq. 18 East 41st Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 744-9600 rickin@skolnicklegalgroup.com 16 18 of 18