On April 11, 2025, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Beach v. Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2025 NY Slip Op. 31321(U), denying a motion for directed verdict because questions of fact remained unresolved, explaining:
Defendants now seek dismissal of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, while plaintiffs insist that the court is compelled by CPLR 4113 to order a new trial on that claim. The court rejects plaintiffs’ argument because the court reserved decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ evidence. This was not dicta as plaintiffs assert.
The court denies defendants’ motion for a directed verdict because the issue is one of credibility. A court will direct a verdict where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party. The court agrees with defendants that CPLR 3212’s summary judgment standard applies here. However, had either party made such a motion prior to trial, it would have been denied on credibility grounds. The parties agree that there is an oral agreement, but they disagree as to the terms which comes down to credibility. Whether there was a meeting of the minds is for the next jury to decide.
Defendants’ arguments for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ contact claim all go to the weight of the evidence which is a jury issue. For example, defendants complain that Vollero could not recall certain terms of the agreement or critical dates, but Beach also testified to the terms of the joint deal. Details such as where they were and when are not elements of their breach of contract claim; they go to weight. While defendants offered substantial documentary evidence to contradict plaintiffs’ testimony, that too comes down to credibility. For example, TCM’s Chief Financial Officer Thomas Dwan testified to the contents of his spreadsheets and that the 10% figure on one of the many spreadsheets was not a typographical error. The only person who could speak to whether there was a typographical error or not was Dwan and he denied it. Whether to believe it, or not, or how much weight to give it, is for the jury to decide.
The court declines to substitute its judgment for the jury’s verdict as doing so is Improper. With the mountain of evidence, testimony, witnesses, and documents that the jury had to sift through after a monthlong trial, and to give such evidence weight, it would be improper for the court to direct the verdict here because the court may weigh some evidence differently.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).