Designer Stone Source, Inc. v Dograa

Supreme Court, Richmond County

Decided on April 13, 2026

Index No. 150977/2022

Ronald Castorina, Jr., J.

I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The Court considered the testimonial and documentary proof received at the nonjury trial, including the testimony of Jaswndar Dograa, Naser Abdeljawad, and Ajoy Nayak (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 55); Plaintiff's Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 admitted into evidence on consent; Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 marked for identification only and not admitted into evidence; and the entirety of the trial. Plaintiff submitted a post-trial written summation on April 13, 2026 (NY [*2]St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 540 and Defendant also submitted a trial summation on April 13, 2026 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 53).

II. Findings of Fact

This action presents a commercial dispute arising from the employment relationship between plaintiff Designer Stone Source, Inc. ("Designer Stone") and defendant Jaswndar Dograa ("Dograa"), and centers upon allegations that, during the course of his employment, the defendant engaged in impermissible side dealings involving quartz slabs, thereby diverting business and misappropriating plaintiff's property or opportunities.

The credible evidence establishes that the defendant was hired by the plaintiff in or about November 2017 and remained employed until approximately June 2021 (tr at page 24, lines 7-10; page 56, lines 7-8 [March 16, 2026]). The parties' relationship was memorialized, in its only written form, by an email dated November 12, 2017. (see id at page 10 line 18 to page 11 line 8). That communication set forth certain terms and conditions of employment, including a probationary period, a four-week notice requirement, and provisions purporting to impose post-employment restrictions and monetary consequences in the event of violation. (see id). The defendant responded to that email on the same date, expressly indicating his agreement with its terms (see id at page 11 line 9 to page 12 line 3).

Notably, no further written agreement, employment contract, or company policy document was introduced into evidence. The defendant testified, without contradiction, that he was never provided with any additional written terms governing his employment, despite repeated requests. (see id at page 24 line 17 to page 25 line 5; page 29 lines 2-6). The Court credits that testimony and finds that the email constituted the entirety of the written agreement between the parties.

The Court further finds that, during the course of his employment, the defendant's role expanded significantly. Initially hired as a part-time salesperson, the defendant was progressively entrusted with increased responsibility, culminating in authority to write checks on behalf of the plaintiff's business. This fact is corroborated by both defendant's testimony and that of plaintiff's principal, Ajoy Nayak, and is accepted as established (see id at page 9 lines 19-24; page 20 lines 12-18; page 30 lines 8-11; page 31 line 20 to page 32 line 1; page 41 lines 1-16).

The record further establishes that, during 2021 and while still employed by the plaintiff, the defendant engaged in a series of transactions involving the sale of quartz slabs to a third-party entity known as Calisco. (see id at page 13 line 14 to page 15 line 15). These transactions were conducted through a separate entity owned by the defendant, Krish International Gems Corp., which predated his employment with plaintiff. (see id at page 9 line 25 to page 10 line 3). The evidence demonstrates that Krish International received four checks from Calisco totaling $135,500, specifically in the amounts of $84,000, $15,000, $15,000, and $21,500, corresponding to transactions occurring between February and June 2021 (see id at page 13 line 20 to page 17 line 22).

The Court finds that the existence of these transactions is conclusively established by Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, which was admitted into evidence on consent. The defendant acknowledged the transactions and testified that they involved the provision of quartz slabs. He further testified that he did not derive any profit from these transactions and, indeed, suffered losses. However, the Court finds that this assertion is unsupported by documentary evidence, such as invoices, [*3]cost records, or financial statements.

A central factual dispute concerns the source of the quartz slabs supplied to Calisco. The defendant testified that, in at least one instance, the plaintiff did not possess the required materials and that he was verbally authorized by plaintiff's principal to pursue the transaction independently. The plaintiff's principal categorically denied granting any such authorization and testified that the defendant engaged in unauthorized side business, sourcing materials and selling to plaintiff's customers without permission.

The Court finds that this conflict in testimony is not resolved by any documentary evidence. No purchase orders, inventory records, or communications were introduced to establish that the materials sold to Calisco originated from plaintiff's inventory or that plaintiff was in a position to fulfill the orders in question.

The testimony of Naser Abdeljawad, principal of Calisco, is of particular significance. Abdeljawad testified that Calisco purchased quartz slabs from the defendant during 2021 and that the materials were similar in type and pricing to those sold by plaintiff. (see id at page 34 line 6 to page 36 line 2). However, he expressly acknowledged that he was not certain as to the source of the materials (see page 36 lines 14-20). The Court finds that this testimony establishes similarity but does not establish provenance.

With respect to Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, consisting of checks bearing defendant's signature, the Court finds that this exhibit was not admitted into evidence and was marked solely for identification. While the defendant acknowledged that the signatures were his, he denied knowledge of the checks and denied receiving the proceeds. As the exhibit was not admitted, the Court makes no findings based upon it.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 reflects a check in the amount of $20,000 drawn on plaintiff's account and payable to M&T Bank. The evidence establishes that this payment was made in connection with a vehicle used by the defendant and that M&T Bank held the loan on that vehicle. (see id at page 21 lines 10-19; page 23 lines 2-3). The defendant testified that the payment constituted reimbursement for a vehicle used for business purposes (see id), while the plaintiff's principal testified that the payment was made to satisfy the defendant's loan obligation (see id at page 43 line 18 to page 44 line 24). The Court finds that the payment was made but that its legal characterization is not established by the record.

III. Conclusions of Law

The Court's determination is guided by the fundamental principle that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof and must establish its claims by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence. That burden encompasses not only proof of the defendant's conduct but also proof of a cognizable legal wrong and resulting injury.

At the outset, the Court addresses the contractual framework governing the parties' relationship. The November 12, 2017 email constitutes the sole written agreement between the parties and establishes that the defendant assented to its terms (see id at page 10 line 18 to page 12 line 10). However, the Court emphasizes that the scope of that agreement is circumscribed. It does not define the exclusivity of defendant's employment, does not expressly prohibit outside business activities during employment, and does not articulate a comprehensive set of fiduciary or contractual obligations. The Court declines to expand the agreement beyond its express terms.

The plaintiff's theory of liability is premised upon allegations of diversion of business, [*4]misappropriation of materials, and improper enrichment. While the evidence establishes that the defendant engaged in independent business transactions with Calisco during his employment, this fact, standing alone, is insufficient to establish liability.

The critical deficiency in plaintiff's case lies in the absence of proof connecting defendant's conduct to a demonstrable injury. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the materials sold to Calisco originated from plaintiff's inventory. The testimony of Abdeljawad does not establish provenance, and the Court cannot infer ownership based solely on similarity of product or pricing.

Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to establish that it possessed and was prepared to fulfill the orders allegedly diverted. The defendant testified that the plaintiff did not have the required materials for at least one transaction, and this testimony was not rebutted by documentary evidence. The absence of purchase orders, inventory records, or customer communications is significant and undermines plaintiff's claim.

The Court further finds that the documentary evidence establishes only that transactions occurred between Calisco and defendant's company. It does not establish that the plaintiff was deprived of property or profit. The mere existence of such transactions does not, without more, establish wrongdoing.

The Court also notes that the defendant's assertion that he did not profit from these transactions, while unsupported, was not contradicted by affirmative proof. The plaintiff did not introduce evidence of cost, pricing, or profit margins specific to the transactions at issue.

With respect to Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, the Court reiterates that it was not admitted into evidence and therefore cannot be considered.

With respect to the $20,000 payment reflected in Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, the Court finds that the evidence establishes that the payment was made but does not establish that it constituted a loan or created a repayment obligation. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Court cannot impose liability.

The Court has carefully considered the credibility of the witnesses. While the testimony of the parties was conflicting, neither account was sufficiently corroborated to establish plaintiff's claims. The testimony of the independent witness does not resolve the central issues.

In sum, the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of proof. The evidence raises questions regarding the defendant's conduct but does not establish liability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court cannot base its determination on conjecture or inference unsupported by the record.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that judgment is rendered in favor of defendant Jaswndar Dograa and against plaintiff Designer Stone Source, Inc.; and it is further

ORDERED, that the complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 13, 2026

Staten Island, New York

HON. RONALD CASTORINA, JR.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT