DECISION/ORDER Plaintiff small corporation, by Summons and Complaint filed 2/23/2022, with the Queens County Civil Court Clerk, seeks a money judgment in the amount of $6,906.00 against defendant small corporation (and at the time of trial, allegedly no longer in business) for “goods/clothing for resale purposes”. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint multiple purchases by defendant during the period of “around 8/1/2017, through 11/19/2018, of goods totaling $16,547.00; that defendant made partial payments in dwindingly smaller amounts through 9/1/2021. That defendant has not made a payment since”. Plaintiff alleges repeated demands for payment. Defendant in their answer raises standard contract theory defenses, including un-accurate calculation standard defenses, but, perhaps incorrectly, but more specifically as part of a “First Counterclaim” alleges “there exists no written agreement between the parties,” that defendant was forced” during the COVID 19 shutdown” to close her business; that she offered to return plaintiff’s goods in good condition, which “plaintiff refused”. Plaintiff’s “First Counterclaim” fails to state a cause of action but raises defenses of partial payment, and counters that the balancewas only $1,100.00. Despite multiple conferences to try to settle the matter, it ultimately came on for trial on 5/7/2024, where trial was had with the assistance of a Bengla interpreter. At trial defendant, as noted in their answer, acknowledge an outstanding balance, but disputed the amount. Plaintiff on its direct case introduced two “ledgers” kept by plaintiff’s proprietor, as exhibits I & II, a notebook and a printed colored pad of ledger entries, admissible as business records. Plaintiff also introduced copies of checks including a copy of a 12/25/2018 check for $1,000.00 returned for un-sufficient funds. More significantly, plaintiff introduced a series of “WHATSAPP” communications, commencing from 10/14/2017 through 12/25/2021, showing a clear course of dealing and communications exchanged between the parties, mostly discussing payments for goods purchased by defendant and defendant’s principal requesting more time to pay and making arrangements to do so. Much attention at trial was directed to plaintiff’s “Ledgers” and the issue that sometimes defendant principal, Rokshana Faruque signed plaintiff’s ledger, confirming a purchase and sometimes she did not. A review of the notes maintained in the plaintiff’s “ledger”, while somewhat far from clear, show at least a good faith effort to maintain an account of purchases and payments. Defendant’s principal Faruque’s testimony included a statement “he would write it into the books and I would sign it”. Defendant was unclear about what payments she allegedly made were for. A “course of dealing” between the parties can help establish the contractual relationship, RPI Professional Alternatives, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. 61 A.D.3d 618 (First Dept. 2009). What the Court finds of particular significance is that plaintiff’s exhibit 4, the “WHATSAPP” communications contains an entry for 3/22/2021: 3/22/2021 “10:58 RIAZ: Salam Uwanna deposit a total amount I will be very thankful then. 3/22/2021 11:01 a.m. RIAZ: $8,266.00 plus $80.00″. In other exchanges that date, defendant’s principal makes communications about making payments, but does not dispute the “total amount” of $8,266.00 plus $80.00″ as of 3/22/2021. The additional messages between the parties do seem to reflect additional payments by defendant, reducing the balance. Confusingly, plaintiffs’ “ledgers” Exhibit I seems to state in two places, a balance of $9,266.00 as opposed to the alleged balance of $8,266.00 as stated on 3/22/2021 in plaintiff’s exhibit 4. More confusingly, plaintiff’s ledger does not bother to include “+” and “-” signs. What the ledger seems to indicate, on a page illustrated “ROKSHANA” are the following last entries: 9/1/2021 $6,606.00 $ 200.00 $6,466.00 $ 80.00 $6,546.00 Discussion was also had by plaintiff about a $360.00 delivery charge, reflected in a separate note in the “ledgers”. “6 x 25 = 150+30 1 x 30 180.00 4 x 45 = 180.00 360.00″ and a notation appeared to be signed or initialed by defendant on 10/24/2019, acknowledging a balance due, but the fact that virtually no evidence was introduced by defendant to show reduction of defendant’s balance to $1,100.00 as alleged, and weighting testimony and the credibility of both parties, plaintiff appears to have established a balance due as of on or about 9/1/2021 of $6,546.00. While the fact plaintiff would not settle for a lesser amount offered does not prove a larger balance was due, it does underline the fact this appears to be the proverbial “matter of principle” supporting plaintiff’s principal’s credibility, when reminded of the difficulty of likely collection from a small allegedly defunct corporation. The Court, acknowledges the great hardships created by the COVID-19 pandemic, but all things considered, plaintiff’s granted a judgment for $6,546.00 together with statutory interest and costs. Dated: September 9, 2024
