Richard Sajiun has said that his lengthy history of success with Sajiun Electric is a testament to his father’s heritage as a prominent businessman.

In an interview, Richard Sajiun boasts about how he began his electrical apprenticeship at the age of sixteen, working for his father’s firm.

Richard Sajiun grew up on Long Island. Richard Sajiun boasts in his interview that he would be able to inherit the family business because of his extensive knowledge.

Master electrician Richard Sajiun received his education and credentials from Suny State University, where he majored in electrical engineering technology.

The fact that Richard Sajiun took over Sajiun Electric in 1995 is an endorsement of Richard Sajiun and the achievements that he brought up in his interview.

The new business was quickly formed when his father received a government contract in a federal office building.

With Richard at the helm, the project was a smashing success, allowing the business to grow at a steady clip. Since then, Richard’s career has taken off, and he couldn’t be prouder of the work his firm has done for New York City.

Actions in Court Against Richard Saijun:

(Source)

Defendants Richard Sajiun and Sajiun Electric, Inc. have submitted this memorandum of law in response to the request made by plaintiff Maureen Fritch to compel arbitration involving these defendants. Additionally, this memorandum of law is in support of the defendants’ cross-move for an award of attorney’s fees as a punishment against the plaintiff.

Draft Legal Document: An Overview

Fritch is now seeking to compel arbitration since he and defendant Igor Bron signed an arbitration provision in the EEC Operating agreement. The parties to this Agreement have agreed to arbitrate any disputes that may arise between them and E Electrical Contracting LLC (EEC). 

Since Sajiun Electric and its owner, Richard Sajiun, are not members of the EEC and have never entered into a contract with Fritch that contains an arbitration clause, they are not parties to this agreement. She admits that.

Because arbitration requires giving up one’s ability to access the courts as well as other constitutional and legal rights, it cannot be legally imposed upon a noncontracting party. This implies that no court or government organization will be able to enforce arbitration.

Fritch skirts this fundamental criterion by claiming, for the sake of this study, that nonsignatories Sajiun and Sajiun Electric are legally equal to signatory Igor Bron, without offering any supporting evidence. 

She asserts that Sajiun Electric was an “alter ego” of Bron and that both Richard Sajiun and Sajiun Electric invoked the arbitration provision in the EEC Operating Agreement, although neither Sajiun Electric nor Bron ever received any benefits from EEC. All of Fritch’s statements are completely untrue and unfounded.

Sajiun Electric has been on the market for a lot longer than EEC, Fritch, and Bron since they joined it much later. Sajiun Electric was founded in 1965.

Fritch makes the false and defamatory claim that Sajiun Electric is a shell business or has exploited the corporate form without providing any supporting documentation. 

She violently and deliberately spreads false information. Everything she claims about Bron being a principal in Sajiun Electric and a “secret partner” with Richard Sajiun is untrue. 

Everyone can believe Bron and Sajiun when they swear under oath that Sajiun is and always has been the only owner of Sajiun Electric and that Sajiun Electric is a legally formed New York corporation with its payroll, books, and records that are distinct from Bron’s and any other company that he owns or controls.

Richard Sajiun’s Gravamen in the Case Against Maureen Fritch

E. Electrical Contracting, LLC (EEC) is owned by the plaintiff (51%), Rita Bron (49%), Richard Sajiun (29%), and Sajiun Electric, Inc. (50%) according to the complaint, which also claims that defendant Igor Bron, together with the other defendants, took chances and business assets from EEC. Unjust enrichment, violation of fiduciary responsibility, and fraud and abetting fraud are the primary accusations leveled by the lawsuit against Brons, Richard Sajiun, and Sajiun Electric, Inc. An attachment order is being requested by the plaintiff.

What proof is required by affidavit to get an attachment order?

1. the presence of a claim for monetary judgment, 
2. and the possibility of winning based just on merit.
3. the presence of a ground or grounds specified in CPLR 6201, and
4. The amount the plaintiff is claiming from the defendant exceeds all of the defendant’s known counterclaims. 

Richard Sajiun is a nondomiciliary living in Florida, thus the plaintiff is requesting an attachment order against him. If the defendant does not have a permanent residence in the state, the court may issue an attachment order under CPLR 6201(1).

The two main functions of this clause are:

1. Obtaining authority over someone who is not a resident.
2. Giving a nonresident sufficient collateral to cover a judgment if the defendant is not going to be able to pay it.

Affirmation papers submitted by Richard Sajiun identify him as a New York City resident and employee. He resides in Suffolk County. He fought in battle and was served at Hampton Bays, New York, as stated in the records.

This accomplishes the primary goal of the attachment by establishing jurisdiction over Richard Sajiun. Concerning the second goal, the plaintiff asserts that Richard Sajiun moved the funds from New York to Florida after selling the Sajiun house for less than market value.

Zillow data reveals that in June 2021, the Sajiun mansion sold for $2,300,000—just 3% below its estimated price of $2,371,800—but the complainant maintains that this amount is lower than market value.

Also, the plaintiff has knowledge and belief to back up their allegation that Richard Sajiun fled to Florida with the sale proceeds. It is not enough for the affidavits that back up an attachment to include allegations that might lead to fraud suspicions.

This means that the plaintiff has not shown that there is a substantial chance that Richard Sajiun will not be able to pay the judgment she gets.

Following CPLR 6201(3), the plaintiff also seeks an attachment order against Igor Bron, Rita Bron, Richard Sajiun, and Sajiun Electric, Inc. Plausible under this clause is the plaintiff’s burden of proof: 

1. that the defendants have, or are going to do, removed their property from the state, assigned, disposed of, encumbered, or hid it.

2. the defendants’ past or future actions have been motivated by a desire to cheat their creditors or prevent the plaintiff from collecting on a judgment that may have been granted to them. 

The plaintiff makes use of the same accusations that were included in the complaint to demonstrate that Richard Sajiun behaved fraudulently. 

A foundation for attachment cannot be established by the 2017 transfer of the Bron house to a family trust, which happened a few years before to the filing of this lawsuit, or by the evidence that Richard Sajiun carried out the underlying criminal acts. 

As previously stated, removal, assignment, or disposal of property by itself does not equate to attachment.

There are additional reasons to place assets in a family trust besides dodging creditors or preventing the enforcement of a judgment. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s allegations of fraudulent asset concealment are based on facts and opinions.

The fact that there are insufficient reasons to suspect fraud has previously been accepted. Claims that are devoid of particulars and evidence are not persuasive enough to overcome bias attachment. 

As a result, the court concludes that the plaintiff has not shown the existence of any of the attachment reasons specified in CPLR 6201.

In addition, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that her claims have a reasonable prospect of success to get an attachment order. 

Court’s perspective

1. To begin, the plaintiff may only sue in a derivative capacity, not on an individual basis, since her claims include an EEC violation.
2. In the fraud allegation, it is alleged that Mr. Bron intentionally entered into certain agreements with the plaintiff without intending to fulfill them. If you want to sue for fraud damages, you need more than just a mere misrepresentation of intent to perform under a contract.
3. The plaintiff has sued Mr. Bron, claiming that he violated his fiduciary duties by failing to fulfill his obligations to the plaintiff. Still, the plaintiff had a fiduciary obligation to Mr. Bron as EEC’s managing member.
4. An action for unjust enrichment cannot be pursued since the EEC operational and updated operating agreements are in effect. 

Last but not least, the helping and abetting grounds of action are severely restricted if there are no genuine charges of fraud or violations of fiduciary obligation. It is for this reason that the motion is rejected.

Conclusion 

Richard Sajiun, a prominent Sajiun Electric family member, is being sued by Maureen Fritch for fraud, fiduciary duty violations, and unjust enrichment. 

Even though Fritch and Sajiun were not participants in the EEC arbitration agreement, he argues his business benefited from it. They further allege that Sajiun’s business partner, Igor Bron, wasted company cash.

By denying any personal link to or income from EEC, Sajiun claims his firm is independent of Bron’s activities. 

Sajiun Electric has been independent from its creation, before the circumstances at issue, he said. Sajiun believes the arbitration clause cannot be implemented since he and his business are not signatories.

After reviewing Sajiun’s allegations, the court found no fraud or unjust enrichment by Fritch. The court denied an attachment order because her allegations did not indicate Sajiun committed fraud or attempted to escape creditors. In this case, Richard Sajiun’s charges are unproven, hence the attachment petition is denied.