By Lasalle, P.J.; Connolly, Genovesi, Landicino, JJ.
AMNON PARIZAT, ET AL., res, v. OVADIA MERON, ET AL., app, ET AL., def — (Index No. 611677/21) McCarter & English, LLP, New York, NY (Penelope M. Taylor, Brian W. Carroll, Scott M. Weingart, and Frederick Conrad Biehl III of counsel), for appellants. Seiden Law LLP, New York, NY (Jake Nachamani, Andrew Sklar, and Priya Lehal of counsel), for respondents. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, the defendants Ovadia Meron and Galit Meron appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jerome C. Murphy, J.), entered May 16, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh amended counterclaims of the defendants Ovadia Meron and Galit Meron and so much of those defendants’ third amended counterclaim as alleged that the plaintiff Amnon Parizat was unjustly enriched by his wrongful retention of the ownership interest of the defendant Ovadia Meron in the plaintiff iON Technology Solutions, LLC. ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the first and second amended counterclaims of the defendants Ovadia Meron and Galit Meron and so much of those defendants’ third amended counterclaim as alleged that the plaintiff Amnon Parizat was unjustly enriched by his wrongful retention of the ownership interest of the defendant Ovadia Meron in the plaintiff iON Technology Solutions, LLC, and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In 2021, the plaintiffs commenced the instant action against Ovadia Meron (hereinafter Ovadia) and his wife, Galit Meron (hereinafter together the defendants), among others. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Ovadia had no ownership interest in the plaintiff iON Technology Solutions, LLC (hereinafter ION). As an exhibit to the complaint, the plaintiffs attached a copy of a consulting agreement dated February 1, 2010, between Ovadia and ION (hereinafter the consulting agreement), which provided, inter alia, that ION was “interested in [Ovadia's] marketing and sales services” and that Ovadia agreed “to promote and sell” ION products “to new and existing customers.” The consulting agreement further provided that ION would pay Ovadia a consultation fee, which included use of a company car and health insurance. The consulting agreement contained a merger clause, which provided that the consulting agreement “embodies the entire understanding of the parties and it overrides and supersedes any prior promises, representation, undertakings or implications exchanged by the parties.” Ovadia signed the consulting agreement, and the plaintiff Amnon Parizat signed the consulting agreement as the president of ION.
