Richard Sajiun – Fraud Exposed in Lawsuits (2023 Update)
Richard Sajiun claims to be a celebrated business professional who has honored his father’s legacy through his long-standing success with Sajiun Electric.
Richard Sajiun in one of his interviews claims to be starting his electrical apprenticeship in his father’s business at the young age of just 16 years. Richard Sajiun was born and raised in Long Island. Further marketing his success in his interview Richard Sajiun claims that his experience throughout the years would eventually equip him to take over the family firm.
Richard Sajiun went to Suny State University and earned a degree in Electrical Engineering Technology, as well as his master electrician’s license. In his interview, Richard Sajiun endorsed himself and his success by mentioning that Sajiun Electric was taken over by Richard Sajiun in 1995.
When his father was awarded a government contract in a federal office building, the new company was born rapidly.
Richard oversaw every part of the project, and its success resulted in the company’s continuous expansion. Richard has had a successful career since then, and he is proud of the job his company has done for the city of New York.
Legal Proceedings Against Richard Saijun:
The information below has been taken out of court documents. Hence, the sentences might be a bit complex and full of legal jargon:
Defendants Richard Sajiun and Sajiun Electric, Inc. file this memorandum of law in response to plaintiff Maureen Fritch’s request to compel arbitration involving these defendants, as well as in support of their cross-move for an award of attorney’s fees as a penalty against the plaintiff.
Preliminary Statement of the Legal Document
Fritch’s move to compel arbitration is based on an arbitration provision in the EEC Operating provision signed by her and defendant Igor Bron. That Agreement mandates those two parties to arbitrate any issues arising from their business, E Electrical Contracting LLC (EEC). Richard Sajiun and his company Sajiun Electric are nonsignatories: they are not members of EEC and have never signed that agreement or any other contract with Fritch that contains an arbitration clause. She does not deny that fact.
Arbitration entails the relinquishment of a party’s right of access to the judicial system and other legal and constitutional rights; therefore, arbitration is not legally enforceable and cannot be lawfully compelled and imposed on a noncontracting party who has never knowingly and voluntarily relinquished his legal rights.
Fritch attempts to skirt this fundamental criterion by stating – without evidence – that for the purposes of this analysis, nonsignatories Sajiun and Sajiun Electric are legally indistinguishable from signatory Igor Bron. She argues that Sajiun Electric is a sham company that abused the corporate form and was a “alter ego” of Bron and that both Sajiun Electric and Richard Sajiun somehow took advantage of and “benefitted” from the EEC Operating Agreement containing the arbitration clause – despite the fact that they were never members of EEC and never participated in or directly benefited from EEC. Fritch’s claims are blatantly bogus fabrications that are completely unsubstantiated and unsupportable.
In reality, Sajiun Electric has been in business for over 50 years, having been founded in 1965 – decades before EEC, Fritch, and Bron entered the industry.
Fritch provides no proof to support her erroneous assertion that Sajiun Electric is a sham corporation or has exploited the corporate form, which is not only incorrect but also defamatory. Her assertion that Bron is a principal in Sajiun Electric and a “secret partner” with Richard Sajiun is entirely unsubstantiated and maliciously and deliberately untrue.
There is no reason to doubt Bron and Sajiun’s sworn testimony that Sajiun is and has been the sole 100% owner of Sajiun Electric at all times relevant and that Sajiun Electric is a duly incorporated New York corporation with its own corporate structure, payroll, and books and records that are separate from and have never been commingled with Bron or any business entity owned or controlled by Bron.
Gravamen of the complaint filed by Maureen Fritch against Richard Sajiun
The complaint alleges that defendant Igor Bron, with the help of defendants Rita Bron, Richard Sajiun, and Sajiun Electric, Inc., misappropriated corporate assets and opportunities from E. Electrical Contracting, LLC (EEC), which is held by the plaintiff (51%), and Mr. Bron (49%). The plaintiff’s main allegations against the Brons, Richard Sajiun, and Sajiun Electric, Inc. are for fraud and abetting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff requests an attachment order.
What needs to be demonstrated through an affidavit in order to obtain an order of attachment
- the existence of a cause of action for a money judgment,
- and the likelihood of victory on the merits.
- the existence of one or more of the grounds listed in CPLR 6201, and
- the sum claimed from the defendant surpasses all counterclaims known to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff requests an attachment order against the defendant Richard Sajiun because he is a nondomiciliary residing in Florida. A court may order an attachment under CPLR 6201(1) where the defendant is a nondomiciliary residing outside the state.
This clause serves two distinct purposes:
- Acquiring jurisdiction over a nonresident.
- Providing adequate security for a future judgment against a nonresident when there is a discernible danger that the defendant would be unable to satisfy any judgment.
Richard Sajiun has filed an affidavit stating that he lives in Suffolk County and works in New York City. According to the documentation, he was served in Hampton Bays, New York, and he took part in the combat.
Thus, jurisdiction over Richard Sajiun has been established, and the first aim of attachment has been met. Concerning the second objective, the plaintiff claims that the Sajiun residence was sold below market value and that Richard Sajiun transferred the money from New York to Florida.
The plaintiff’s claim that the Sajiun residence was sold for less than market value is based on a Zillow listing that shows the property sold for $2,300,000 in June 2021, just 3% less than its estimated worth of $2,371,800.
Furthermore, the plaintiff’s claim that Richard Sajiun took the sale profits to Florida is founded on information and belief. It is insufficient that the affidavits supporting an attachment contain charges raising the suspicion of fraud.
As a result, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a real and recognizable risk that Richard Sajiun will be unable to pay whatever judgment she obtains.
The plaintiff also requests an attachment order against the defendants Igor Bron, Rita Bron, Richard Sajiun, and Sajiun Electric, Inc., in accordance with CPLR 6201(3). Under this provision, the plaintiff must show:
- that the defendants have assigned, disposed of, encumbered, or secreted their property, or removed it from the state, or are about to do so.
- that the defendants have acted or will act with the intent to defraud their creditors or thwart the enforcement of a judgment that may be rendered in the plaintiff’s favor.
The plaintiff relies on the same accusations as the complaint to demonstrate Richard Sajiun’s fraudulent purpose. Proof that Richard Sajiun committed the underlying illegal activities is insufficient to create a foundation for attachment, nor is the transfer of the Bron house to a family trust in 2017, many years before this action was filed. As previously stated, just removing, assigning, or disposing of property is not grounds for attachment.
There are reasons to transfer property to a family trust aside from defrauding creditors or preventing the enforcement of a judgment. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s allegations of fraudulent asset concealment are based on information and belief.
As previously stated, allegations raising suspicion of fraud are insufficient. Allegations that are vague and conclusory without supporting evidence are insufficient for prejudgment attachment. As a result, the court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to show the existence of one or more of the attachment reasons specified in CPLR 6201.
The plaintiff has also failed to prove a likelihood of victory on the merits of her claims, which is required to secure an attachment order.
Opinion of the court
- To begin, the plaintiff’s allegations allege an EEC wrong for which the plaintiff may sue derivatively but not individually.
- According to the fraud claim, Mr. Bron entered into specific agreements with the plaintiff with no intention of honoring them. A simple misrepresentation of intent to execute under a contract is inadequate to maintain a right of action to recover fraud damages.
- Mr. Bron is accused of breaching his fiduciary obligation to the plaintiff in the breach-of-fiduciary-duty cause of action. However, as the managing member of EEC, the plaintiff owed Mr. Bron a fiduciary duty.
- The existence of the EEC operating and revised operating agreements nullifies the cause of action for unjust enrichment.
Finally, the aiding-and-abetting causes of action collapse in the absence of legitimate fraud and breach-of-fiduciary-duty causes of action. As a result, the motion is refused.
As Justice Arlene P. Bluth noted in Erensel v Abitbol, the aim of a prejudgment attachment order is “not merely to ensure a plaintiff can recover the amount sought if he or she prevails in a case.” Otherwise, almost every plaintiff would be entitled to an attachment.” As a result of this ruling, obtaining a prejudgment attachment order is a difficult task, and attorneys must educate their clients on the onerous burden required to secure such relief.