DECISION AFTER BENCH TRIAL INTRODUCTION This case arises out of HPH Services, Inc. (“HPH”) and Shallan Haddad’s (“Mr. Haddad”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleged diversion of funds that Plaintiff Flintlock Construction Services, LLC (“Plaintiff or “Flintlock”) provided to pay for equipment for construction of a hotel. Between August 22, 2022 and August 23, 2022, this court held a bench trial on the only causes of action remaining before the court: diversion of trust assets, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation against HPH and Haddad. This decision contains the court’s credibility determinations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law following that bench trial. CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT In advance of the trial, the court received direct testimony by affidavit from Andrew Weiss, the managing member of Flintlock, and senior director of construction at Flintlock, Ray Dar (“Dar”). At trial, Plaintiff called Mr. Haddad, secretary at HPH, as an adverse witness, and Weiss. Defendants did not call any witnesses. The court finds no reason to question the credibility of Weiss’s or Dar’s testimony. However, Mr. Haddad’s testimony lacked credibility because of significant inconsistencies between his trial testimony and previous statements that he made in an affidavit and at his deposition. At trial, Mr. Haddad testified that no items in Requisition 8 were related to any long lead item materials (NYSCEF Doc. No. 343, pp. 45-46 [emphasis added]) despite testifying at his deposition that the $451,325.56 amount in Requisition 8 “would be for materials, equipment and supplies for the project” (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1060, p. 129). Additionally, at trial, Mr. Haddad claimed not to know if a $480,000.00 check was a payment against Requisition 8 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 343, p. 53) even though he acknowledged at his deposition that he was paid $480,000.00 “for requisition number 8″ (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1060, p. 129). The dual questions of: (1) whether or not Requisition 8 involved deposits for equipment and (2) whether or not Flintlock sent HPH its $480,000.00 check in connection with Requisition 8 are fundamental to determine liability in this case. Mr. Haddad’s shifting stories on these fundamental questions raise serious doubts as to his credibility as a witness. However, the inconsistencies in Mr. Haddad’s testimony do not stop there. At trial, Mr. Haddad denied having been involved with the “handling of the receipt of payments…and the payment of vendors and material men” despite testifying at his deposition that he was the only one at HPH with the authority to issue checks and wire transfers to suppliers and material men (NYSCEF Doc. No. 343, p. 27; Plaintiff’s Ex. 1060, pp. 116-117 [emphasis added]). Mr. Haddad also testified at trial that he had no recollection of his office forwarding invoices from manufacturers to Flintlock in the summer of 2012 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 343, p. 47), even though in his affidavit in support of summary judgment — signed in April 2022 — he stated that “at Flintlock’s request, HPH provided written price quotes and/or deposit invoices for various items of HVAC and mechanical equipment” (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1049 [emphasis added]). It is implausible that, a mere four months after signing this affidavit, Mr. Haddad no longer recalled whether or not he sent invoices for equipment to Flintlock. In light of these deep inconsistencies on critical issues, the court disregards Mr. Haddad’s testimony in its entirety pursuant to the doctrine of in falsus uno, in falsus omnibus. Finally, if the inconsistencies were not enough, the fact remains that, despite knowing Plaintiff claimed the monies for the vendors per requisition 8, Mr. Haddad evidently had contested funds, that were being held in escrow, transferred to his lawyer-wife’s escrow account and then disbursed to HPH. He did not continue to hold the disputed funds in escrow. This self-dealing reflects poorly on his credibility. Notwithstanding the lack of credible testimony by a representative of HPH, the court gleans a complete picture of the relevant facts from the testimonies of Weiss and Dar as well as documentary evidence in the record. Between January 1, 2012 and July 21, 2012, HPH submitted seven payment requisitions to Flintlock related to the Project, and Flintlock paid HPH a total of $583,900.00 on those requisitions (NYSCEF Doc. No. 340, 29; Plaintiff’s Exs. 1003-1009, 1012). In August of 2012, Weiss and Dar personally met with Mr. Haddad at Flintlock’s office. At that meeting, Mr. Haddad stated that “in order to move the Project along, he needed deposit money for the equipment he ordered for the Project” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 340, 33). Weiss and Dar indicated to Mr. Haddad that Flintlock would pay most of the deposit money “directly to the vendors and suppliers as was customarily done by the company” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 340, 33). However, Mr. Haddad “strenuously” objected to Flintlock paying the vendors and suppliers directly. Weiss and Dar “ultimately agreed, due to Haddad’s persuasion, that Flintlock would pay HPH direct for the deposits and that [Mr. Haddad] could then pay [] for the equipment deposits directly through HPH” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 340, 35). HPH then submitted to Flintlock Requisition 8, dated August 21, 2012, for the amount of $583,685.77 (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1010). This document allocated for equipment deposits and payments in the total amount of $451,326.00 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 340,
37, 47; Plaintiff’s Ex. 1010). This is particularly clear based on an email chain from September to October of 2012 between Flintlock and a Haddad Plumbing and Heating employee, which contains multiple references to “deposits” for HPH (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1020). The email references “deposits” for “Cooling Tower, Chiller,” “Boilers,” “HVAC Pumps,” “Fan Coil and AHU,” “Storage Tank and Controls,” and “Fire Pump and Controller” for the precise amounts that appear for those items on Requisition 8 (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1010; Plaintiff’s Ex. 1020). Notably, Requisition 8 contains separate line items for equipment and the labor to install that equipment. For example, Requisition 8 contains line items for “Cooling tower, chiller, HX, filters” and for “Cooling tower, chiller, HX, filters — installation” (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1010, p. 2). Requisition 8 also contains a specific reference to “Fuel Oil Equipment” (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1010, p. 2 [emphasis added]). These facts negate Defendants’ suggestion that none of Requisition 8 was for equipment deposits.1 In addition to providing Requisition 8 to Flintlock, HPH sent Flintlock a series of price quotes, invoices, and purchase orders for particular items related to Requisition 8, some dated before Requisition 8 and others dated after (NYSCEF Doc. No. 340,
