Becker v. Perla

Becker v Perla

2025 NY Slip Op 32085(U)

June 10, 2025

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 651575/2013

Judge: Jennifer G. Schecter

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2025 09:53 AM INDEX NO. 651575/2013

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1218 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY: COMMERCIAL DIVISION

PRESENT: HON. JENNIFER G. SCHECTER PART _ _ _~5~4_ __

Justice

-----------,----------X

RONNY BECKER, STEVEN KINZELBERG, AARON INDEX NO. 651575/2013

POLINSKY, JAMES BECKER, AMIT J. LANDESMAN,

ANTHONY DOLCE, NETANEL ASHKANAZI,

Plaintiffs, DECISION AFTER TRIAL

-v-

DANIEL PERLA, DANIEL PERLA ASSOCIATES, LP.,

TEAM SOHO D,R., LLC, TEAM SOHO, LLC,

FOUNTAINBLEAU BEACH RESORT, S.A. A/KIA

FONTAINBLEAU BEACH RESORT, S.A., REGISTRO

MERCANTIL OF FONTAINEBLEAU BEACH RESORT, SRL,

FONTAINBLEAU BEACH RESORT SRL, COPRODUM,

S.A.,

Defendants.

--------"----"-------------X

This case principally concerns plaintiff Ronny Becker's attempt to recover his profit share

from real estate development projects on 23rd Street and Greene Street in Manhattan (the

NY Projects). While Becker claimed to be owed nearly $8 million, recognizing the long

and tortured history of this action and the sharply disputed facts about the exact amount of

his share, Becker limited his claim to the $4.5 million that defendant Daniel

Perla contended he invested on Becker's behalf, along with his own money and money

from other investors, in a real estate development project in the Dominican Republic (the

DR Project). Perla was ordered to provide an accounting of the DR Project so that Becker

could find out what actually happened to his money. As explained below, Perla failed to

comply with numerous· court orders regarding the accounting, which made it difficult to

ascertain what happened to the money put into the DR Project.. In the end though--at least

for purposes of this action--many of these unresolved questions do not matter because: (1)

in the accounting, Perla swore that he put $4.5 million of Becker's money into the DR

Project; but (2) at his deposition and at trial, Perla admitted that he never did so. While

Perla now contends that Becker is not owed any money from the NY Projects, he is

estopped from taking that position based on his sworn statement to the contrary in the

accounting (and, in·a,n.y event, his convenient backtracking renders him wholly incredible

on the matter). Since Perla admitted that Becker is owed $4.5 million and that ultimately

such funds were never put into the DR Project, the court finds that he owes this money to

Becker.

Also at issue in this action are claims by plaintiffs Amit Landesman and James Becker

seeking return of funds that they invested with Perla. As set forth below, they failed to

prove entitlement to rescission;

-DECISION AFTER TRIAL

1 of 6 Paae 1 of6

[* 1]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2025 09:53 AM INDEX NO. 651575/2013

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1218 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2025

Procedural History

Plaintiffs commenced this action in 2013. By order dated May 14, 2015, Perla was directed

to provide accountings and all supporting documents regarding the corporate entities at

issue in this case (Dkt 90 at 2). Perla did not comply. By order dated July 14, 2015, the

court set new compliance deadlines and provided specific directives regarding the level of .

detail that was to be provided (Dkt. 91 ). Perla still did not comply. The original accounting

he provided, which he has since disavowed, did not comply with the court's order (see

generally Dkt. 104 ). On December 14, 2015, the court issued a conditional order providing

that defendants' pleadings would be stricken unless they complied and filed a proper

accounting with appropriate documentation and explanations (Dkt. 108).

On May 10, 2016, Perla filed an accounting of the DR Project (Dkt. 119 [the DR

Accounting]). The DR Accounting reflects that the DR Project was operated through Team

Soho DR LLC and that, according to Perla, $4.5 million of Becker's money was put into

this LLC as a capital contribution (see id. at 10). 1 This is consistent with the 2010 K-1 that

Perla prepared and provided to Becker (Dkt. 465; see Dkt. 1192 at 20-21). It is also

consistent with what Perla told Becker in 2008 (see Dkt. 1124 at 13).

Along with the DRAccounting, Perla filed 24 exhibits but did not identify or explain which

exhibits supported which portions of the accounting (Dkt. 120). By order dated May 24,

2016, the court notedthat this violated the December 14 conditional order, but the court

imposed a monetary.sanction instead of striking defendants' pleadings (Dkt. 121). The

court further ordered Perla to file an affidavit attesting that he has no further documents

supporting the accountings. (see id. at 2). Perla, again, did not comply, but yet again was

given a final opportunity todo so (see Dkt. 123). On July 13, 2016, Perla filed an affidavit

stating that he has no further documents in his possession, custody or control supporting

the accountings (0kt. 124).

The parties then spent considerable time completing fact and expert discovery based on the

accountings. The note ofissue was.filed in 2019. After an extensive pre-trial process,the

court held a bench trial faJuly 2024 (see Dkts. 1191-1197), after which the parties filed

post-trial briefs (Dkts. 1200, 1216, _1217).

Becker's Claim

Becker is entitled to recover $4.5 million. Perla filed an accounting in 2016 in which he

took the position that Becker was owed $4.5 million from the NY Projects and that this

money was pufinto the DR Project as Becker's capital contribution. He swore in an

affidavit that the accounting was true and complete (Dkt~ 119 at 27). 2 The parties then

1 The accounting purports to explain various other hotly disputed expenditures, such as the amount

purportedly spent on the land. While Perla did not credibly provide any testimony or evidence

about exactly hownmch was really paid for the land (and indeed the court did riot find him to be

a credible witness), as noted, the court need not ascertain the true amounts spent on the DR Project

since they are not necessaryto resolve plaintiffs' claims.

2 Though Perla didnot explicidy state in the accounting that the $4.5 million is money owed to

Becker from the NY Projects, based on the evidence, that is the only basis for the contribution.

2 of 6 Paae 2of6

[* 2]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2025 09:53 AM INDEX NO. 651575/2013

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1218 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2025

spent years and significant resources taking discovery to vet the veracity of this assertion

and to see what happened to this investment. Remarkably, at his deposition, Perla admitted

that he could not identify any specific bank records showing Becker's money being put into

the DR Project (see Dkt. 1155 at 160-161). He claims to have essentially made up the

numbers to justify how much he wanted to attribute to the parties' capital contributions

based on the amounts that were supposedly put into and spent on the DR Project (see

id.). Perla confirmed this at trial (Dkt. 1191 at 156-159; see Dkt. 1216 at 8 ["Defendants

never produced·or showed.to _the Court a single check or wire transfer connected to those

· [$4.5 million] payments. Instead, at trial and over the past sixteen years preceding trial,

Defendants took the position that they could not produce checks, wire transfers or even

deposit entries from bank statements that·Perla himself controlled and received at his own

home. When asked why Perla doesn't simply attach the bank records to show the deposit

of the $9 million dollars (halfPerla's money and half Becker's money), Perla swore that

he came up with the $9 million dollar number by adding up all the DR Project expenses

and subtracting the third.;.party investor money out and that left $9 million dollars, so that

had to be his and Becker's investment"]; see also id. at 11). Thus, it is undisputed that

Perla never put any of Becker's money into the DR Project and that Becker's $4.5 million

capital contribution that Perla recorded was just a made-up accounting notation (see Dkt.

1216 at 17 ["Perla swore he never told Guberman he put Becker's $4.5 million in the DR

Project" and that "when asked about the alleged $9 million dollar contribution, Guberman

testified 'there was no document that backed that calculated number up, no"], citing Dkt.

1191 at 157, Dkt.1197 at 24).

This admission.vvould.seemingly resolve this case. However, Perla now contends that he

does not owe Becker any money.

The court rejects this outrageous assertion. There was no reason for the parties to have

spent years trying to follow the money and to have investigated the details of the DR Project

if Becker was not owed $4.5 million on the NY Projects in the first place. That was the

whole basis for the DR. Project accounting. · If Perla's position was that Becker was not

entitled to any further profits on the NY Projects, he should have just said so, and the focus

of the case would have been limited to the accountings of the NY Projects. The DR Project

would not have mattered. Instead, Perla repeatedly told Becker that his $4.5 million of

profit on the NY Projects was invested into the DR Project (Dkt. 1124· at 13-14, 21; see Dkt.

465). He now admits th.at never occurred. Perla could simply have taken the position that

Becker was notowed any unpaid profits from the NY Projects rather than making up a fake

capital contribution to which Becker was supposedly entitled. Perla made Becker go on a

wild goose chase based on a lie.

Perla does not contend thatBecker's capital contribution was or could have been attributable to

anything else. After all, there was no evidence that Becker supplied Perla with $4.5 million in

cash. Indeed, the entire premise of accounting for Becker having a capital contribution was to give

him credit for what he was owed from the NY Projects. That was Perla's only excuse for not

paying Becker his profits. )3-ecker testified that Perla told him that is where he allocated his profits,

and this is consistent with the 2010 K-1. Thus, when Perla accounted for Becker having a $4.5

million capital contribution in the DR Project, the court finds this to be an admission that this is an

amount that Becker was owed on the NY Projects.

3 of 6 Paae 3of6

[* 3]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2025 09:53 AM INDEX NO. 651575/2013

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1218 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2025

Under these circumstances, the court finds that Perla, a fiduciary, is bound by his sworn

representation in his accounting that Becker earned and is owed $4.5 million (see Matter

of Liquidation of Union Indem. Ins. Co. of NY., 89 NY2d 94, 103 [ 1996]; see also Dkts.

465, 552). Perla cannot disavow his critical admission as a strategic tactic at trial. The

whole point of an accounting ·is for a fiduciary to disclose what happened to money. While

Becker interposed· extensive objections to the accountings, he accepted defendants'

fundamental admission that Becker, at a minimum, was entitled to $4.5 million as his

outstanding profit share from the NY Projects (see Dkt. 555 at 17 n 18). Perla cannot

credibly walk that back at trial. Crediting such wasteful gamesmanship would make a

mockery of the judicial process.

Even if there is no doctrinal basis to categorically estop a fiduciary from disavowing an

admission in his own accounting that has been the basis of the parties' more-than~a-decade-

long litigation, the information in Perla's accounting along with his prior representations to

Becker are still informal judicial admissions and credible evidence that Perla, at a

minimum, owes Becker $4'.5 million (U-Trend NY. Inv.L.P. v US Suite LLC, 186 AD3d

438,441 [1st Dept 2020]; Bogoni v Friedlander, 197 AD2d 281,292 [1st Dept 1994]; see

Milton Weinstein Assoc. v Nynex Corp., 266 AD2d 138, 139 [1st Dept 1999]; see also

Capasso v Capasso, 119 AD2d 268, 272 [1st Dept 1986], accord Pezzullo v Palmisano,

261 AD2d 173,174 [1st Dept 1999]). ·As discussed, Perla's unfounded attempt to explain

away these admissions lacks.credibility. Indeed, in hindsight, and based on an evaluation

of Perla's credibility, it appears that Perla never had any intention of paying Becker his

profit share from the NY Projects and simply made up a story about putting his money into

the DR Project. But. when it became clear that he could never properly account for the

money and faced the prospect of being surcharged, he backtracked and tried to claim that

Becker is owed nothing.•.· This account lacks any credibility.

Becker, by contrast, was a credible witness. The court credits his testimony and the

credible evidence he submitted at trial showing that he is owed more than $4.5 million

(Dkt. 1216 at 19-24~ see Dkt. 1124 at 13-14, 21; see also Dkt. 465). The court need not

· determine exactly how much more he was owed since he only seeks $4.5 million (see Dkt.

1216 at 24). Becker is undoubtedly owed this money.

Aside from Perla's undisputed testimony that Becker's $4.5 million was never invested into

the DR Project, the courtdoes not credit any other portion of Perla's testimony. He cannot

be trusted to testify truthfully after having lied for so many years about investing Becker's

money into the DR Project. Moreover, so much of his testimony about what happened

with the DR Project did not come across as truthful and was not supported by any credible

corroborating evidence'. l;Us accountings certainly cannot be trusted; they suffer from a

lack of supporting documentation. To be sure, even though Perla's failure to properly

account for all of the money spent on the DR Projecthas limited dispositive import beyond

Becker's entitlement to the $4.5 million (but see infra, n 5), the overarching lack of

4 of 6 Paae4of6

[* 4]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2025 09:53 AM INDEX NO. 651575/2013

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1218 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2025

credibility of Perla's accou.nting testimony was a further indication that he is not a reliable

witness. 3

Becker is entitledto prt}-judgment interest from the date he demanded his money in August

2008 (CPLR 5001; see Gliklad v Cherney, 132 AD3d 601 [1st Dept 2015]; Eisen v Feder,

47 AD3d 595, 596 [1st Dept 2008]; First Wall St. Settlement Corp. v Hart, 187 AD2d 352,

353 [1st Dept 1992]). 4

The Other Plaintiffs' Claims

Plaintiffs Amit Landesman and James Becker failed to submit clear and convincing

evidence that . Perla ·. made any misrepresentations that fraudulently induced their

investments (Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 94 NY2d 330, 349 [ 1999]; see Hayes

v Martinez, 216 AD3d 488,489 [1st Dept 202~], citing Pasternack v Laboratory Corp. of

Am. Holdings, 21 NY3d 817, 828 [2016]). While Landesman testified that he spoke with

Perla, his testimony . is devoid of any specific details about what exact factual

representations were false or that they were knowingly false (0kt. 1076 at 2; see Dkt. 1200

at 26-27). Not only is the same true ofJames Becker, but he also testified that he received

his information from Ronny Becker (Dkt. 1102 at 3; see Dkt. 1200 at 20-22). Thus, there

is no basis to rescind theirinvestments~ Their other arguments are unavailing.

Conclusion

While the court recognizesthat there are many unresolved questions about the status of the

DR Project, it is unclear if anyone will further probe those questions or seek additional

recourse. In light of how the parties charted their course in this action--Ronny Becker

limiting his claim tothe $45 million and Amit Landesman and James Becker electing to

pursue their rescission ·. claim--the court will not provide advisory opinions on those

questions since they are·notnecessary to decide the claims that plaintiffs asked the court to

resolve. Perhaps the recovery awarded will be sufficient for the parties to move on. 5

3 While the court wasonotpersuaded by Perla's expert's testimony either (see, e.g., Dkt. 1197 at 72-

73), since the court finds that the credible evidence proves Becker's entitlement to the $4.5 million,

such evidence does not warrant more extensive discussion. Of course, no expert could salvage an

accounting that lacks credible documentation and is based on an·unreliable fiduciary's testimony

(see O'Mahony v Whiston, 224 AD3d 609, 609-611 [1st Dept 2024]). The court also will not

discuss the testimony of Ilecker's expert since his assertions about the accountings, while largely

credible, are academic.

4 Since Becker's testimonywas unclear about the exact date, interest will run from the end of that

month. This will cornperisate Becker for· the loss of the use of his funds (see NML Capital v

Republic ofArgentina, 17 NY3d 250,266 [2011]).

5 For the avoidance ofdo11bt~ the court has considered all of the other arguments made in the post-

trial briefs and finds-them ei~er unavailing or moot by virtue ofthese determinations. Likewise,

to the extent that there were any. other pending claims not addressed in the briefs, the court deems

them abandoned or UI1availing; While defendants sought to interject confusion about the scope of

the trial and suggested there rnight be further claims to be addressed afterward (see, e.g., Dkt. 1191

at 14), and though the. court declined to rule out that possibility prior to trial because it was

theoretically possible that some legal claims might have been left unresolved, the court's rulings

5 of 6 Paae 5of6

[* 5]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2025 09:53 AM INDEX NO. 651575/2013

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1218 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2025

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment: (1) in favor of

plaintiff Ronny Becker and against defendant Daniel Perla in the amount of $4.5 million,

with 9% pre-judgment interest from August 31, 2008 to the date judgment is entered; and

(2) dismissing all other claims with prejudice.

Plaintiffs shall e-file a proposed judgment to the Clerk consistent with this order.

DATE: 6/10/2025

on the accountings negate that possibility. The court has found that Becker is owed $4.5 million

from the NY Projects and that Perla's accountings are unreliable. Any affirmative claims based

on Perla's involvement with the NY Projects and the DR Project were necessarily subsumed in the

accountings. Thus, there cannot be any legal or equitable basis for Perla to seek any affirmative

recovery. Indeed, Perla has escaped more severe accountability-likely millions of additional

dollars of unpaid profits and millions of dollars in derivative damages due to corporate waste and

attorneys' fees due to his failure to account-by virtue of Becker having limited his claim to the

$4.5 million. If Perla had maintained from the outset that Ronny Becker had no interest in the DR

Project, tremendous time and cost would have been avoided. Under these circumstances, and

knowing that enforcement proceedings may lie ahead, Perla is cautioned that if he engages in

further wasteful litigation or proffers additional clearly false assertions, the court will entertain an

application for sanctions.

6 of 6 Paae6of6

[* 6]