Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pieper v. Benerin, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. New York

August 22, 2013

SUSAN PIEPER d/b/a PET EXPRESSIONS, Plaintiff,
v.
BENERIN, LLC, SMITHAVEN VETERINARY HOSPITAL, P.C., SMITHAVEN GROOMING, RONALD COIRO and Does 1-20, Defendants

Page 322

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 323

For Plaintiff: Keith Altman, Esq., of Counsel, The Law Office of Keith Altman, Temecula, CA.

For Defendants: Patrick McCormick, Esq., Jeffrey V. Basso, Esq., of Counsel, Campolo, Middleton, & McCormick, LLP, Bohemia, New York.

Page 324

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

ARTHUR D. SPATT, United States District Judge.

On August 10, 2012, the Plaintiff Susan Pieper d/b/a Pet Expressions (the " Plaintiff" or " Pieper" ) commenced this action alleging a racketeering scheme and conspiracy to commit racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (" RICO" ). In this regard, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Ron Coiro (" Coiro" ) through the use of and in cahoots with the Defendants Benerin, LLC (" Benerin" ), Smithaven Veterinary Clinic,

Page 325

Inc. (" Smithaven Vet" ) and Smithaven Grooming (collectively, the " Defendants" ), devised and implemented a scheme involving the mail and wires to (1) overcharge the Plaintiff for utilities; (2) disrupt and destroy the Plaintiff's business and; (3) defraud the Town of Smithtown (the " Town" or " Smithtown" ). In addition, the Plaintiff brings state law claims for misrepresentation under New York law, common law unjust enrichment, conversion and fraud.

Presently before the court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (" Fed. R. Civ. P." ) 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under RICO. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's RICO claims with prejudice. The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise stated, the following facts are derived from the Plaintiff's amended complaint and construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant Benerin owns the property and buildings located at 810 Middle Country Road in the town of St. James, New York (" 810 Middle Country Road" or the " Property" ). 810 Middle Country Road houses two buildings, a front building and a rear building. The front building is divided into three units. In this regard, Benerin rented two of those units to residential tenants. The third unit (the " Premises" ) was rented to the Plaintiff for operation of her pet grooming services business, which she called Pet Expressions. The Plaintiff leased the Premises from Benerin from some unspecified time in mid-2004 until April 30, 2012.

The Defendant Smithaven Vet is a veterinary services business that operates out of the rear building at 810 Middle Country Road. The Defendant Smithaven Grooming is a pet grooming services business that began operating from the Premises after Pet Expressions vacated the Premises. The Defendant Coiro is the sole owner and in charge of all operations of Benerin, Smithaven Grooming and Smithaven Vet.

With respect to the Plaintiff's leasing of the Premises, the Plaintiff's lease was a month-to-month tenancy under which she paid rent of $1,500 per month. She was also responsible for a proportionate share of the utility bills for the building. On behalf of Benerin, Coiro calculated the Plaintiff's proportionate share as 65% of the total utility bills. In this regard, Corio reasoned that the Plaintiff's business used significantly more utilities than the other two residential occupants of the building. The Plaintiff reasonably relied on Coiro's representations as to the utility charges.

However, the Plaintiff alleges that Coiro knew that 65% was an exaggerated estimate of the Plaintiff's use of the buildings utilities. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants charged the other two residents for a total of 40% of the utility bills and therefore netted a 5% surplus from tenant utility payments, which it kept for its own profit. The Plaintiff further contends that after the basement apartment at the front building was vacated, the building's total utility bill went down 30%. This led the Plaintiff to conclude, assuming the utility usage of the two apartments was comparable, that the two apartments on the property cumulatively used approximately 60% of the utilities, which would mean that the Plaintiff's proportionate share was actually only 40% and certainly not 65% of the total bill.

Page 326

On November 1, 2011, Corio informed the Plaintiff that her rent would be increasing about 20%. He also demanded that the Plaintiff renovate the Premises using Benerin's preferred contractor and undertake repairs of structural damage. The Plaintiff alleges that there was no structural damage and that Benerin's contractor would have overcharged the Plaintiff in order to subsidize other work the contractor was doing for Coiro. She further alleges that on two occasions, January 16, 2012 and February 5, 2012, Coiro threatened to turn off all utilities at the Premises unless the Plaintiff agreed to the new lease terms.

On February 14, 2012, Benerin sent a notice of termination through the United States Postal Service to Pet Expressions terminating the Plaintiff's lease as of March 31, 2012. On March 3, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Defendants in which she outlined her complaints concerning overcharges and the other events forming the basis of the present action. She received no response from the Defendants.

Thereafter, on March 28, 2012, prior to the March 31, 2012 deadline, the Plaintiff filed for declaratory relief against termination in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Suffolk, claiming lack of an adequate notice of termination. Five days later, on April 2, 2012, Benerin instituted holdover proceedings against the Plaintiff in Suffolk County District Court and caused a copy of that proceeding to be mailed to the Plaintiff through the United States Postal Service.

On April 10, 2012, Benerin and the Plaintiff entered into a stipulated settlement pursuant to which the Plaintiff vacated the Premises on April 30, 2012. The Plaintiff claims she left the Premises in a commercially reasonable manner. Subsequently, the Defendants repaired and renovated the Premises. On May 10, 2012, Benerin sent a letter to the Plaintiff concerning the damages to the Premises and alleged that the Plaintiff was responsible. On June 12, 2012, Benerin sued the Plaintiff in New York State Supreme Court, County of Suffolk, for utility payments in arrears and for the cost of repairs Benerin performed on the Premises after the Plantiff vacated it.

On July 5, 2012, The Defendant Smithaven Grooming began operating pet grooming services from the Premises. The Plaintiff alleges that both prior to April 30, 2012 and after that date, the Defendants Smithaven Vet and Smithaven Grooming made representations to their customers and the public that Pet Expressions was going out of business and, on other occasions, that Smithaven Grooming was Pet Expressions.

The Plaintiff contends that the above actions by the Defendants were done in furtherance of a premeditated scheme to disrupt and destroy the Plaintiff's business. This scheme included overcharging the Plaintiff for utilities and demanding that the Plaintiff agree to unfavorable lease terms.

The Plaintiff also alleges a series of illegal acts committed by the Defendants that are unrelated to the Plaintiff. First, she alleges that Benerin illegally rented apartments at the Property for residential use without the appropriate permit to do so. She also alleges that the front building at the Property contains an added second floor even though the Town was never notified of its construction. As such, she claims that the property's tax bill was consistently underestimated and, as a result, that Benerin's property taxes were underpaid. Finally, she alleges that there was a swimming pool between the two buildings on the Property which Coiro

Page 327

filled in without a permit and without using ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.