At page 617 Establishing fiduciary relationship for accounting claims5 citing cases“The right to an accounting rests on the existence of a trust or fiduciary relationship regarding the subject matter of the controversy at issue.”
- Gen. Ret. Sys. of Detroit v. Ubs, Ag, 799 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D. Mich. 2011).published “The right to an accounting rests on the existence of a trust or fiduciary relationship regarding the subject matter of the controversy at issue.”
- JJM Sunrise Auto., LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 46 Misc. 3d 755 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014).publishedThe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.) denied Audi’s motion and with respect to the breach of fiduciary claim, the court stated: “Generally, there is no fiduciary relationship between a franchisor and a franchisee (Akkaya v Prime…
- Stein v. Doukas, 98 A.D.3d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Akkaya v Prime Time Transp., Inc., 45 AD3d 616, 617 [2007]).
- East End Labs., Inc. v. Sawaya, 79 A.D.3d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).publishedServs., 74 AD3d 1135, 1138 [2010]; Rocchio v Biondi, 40 AD3d 615, 616 [2007]), or for an accounting (see Akkaya v Prime Time Transp., Inc., 45 AD3d 616, 617 [2007]; Town of New Windsor v New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d…
- Goldfine v. Sichenzia, 73 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).publishedContrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendant Catherine N. Coughlin—a shareholder of the defendant Artesian Abstracts, Inc. (hereinafter Artesian)—dismissing the causes of acti…
845 N.Y.S.2d at 828 Establishing fiduciary relationship for right to accounting3 citing casesThe right to an accounting rests on the existence of a trust or fiduciary relationship regarding the subject matter of the controversy at issue.
- Gen. Ret. Sys. of Detroit v. Ubs, Ag, 799 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D. Mich. 2011).published (The right to an accounting rests on the existence of a trust or fiduciary relationship regarding the subject matter of the controversy at issue.)
- Flb, LLC v. 5linx, 821 F. Supp. 2d 548 (W.D.N.Y. 2011).published“[t]]here is no fiduciary relationship between a franchisee and a franchisor”
- Picard Ex Rel. Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC v. Madoff (In Re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 458 B.R. 87 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).published But it is necessary to establish the “existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship and a breach of the duty imposed by that relationship respecting property in which the party seeking the accounting has an interest.” Palazzo v. Pa…
Other citing cases
- Pacella v. RSA Consultants, Inc., 83 N.Y.S.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018).published
- DiTolla v. Doral Dental IPA of New York, LLC, 100 A.D.3d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published
v.
Prime Time Transportation, Inc.
In an action for an accounting, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated May 8, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted that branch of the defendant’s[*617] cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“The right to an accounting rests on the existence of a trust or fiduciary relationship regarding the subject matter of the controversy at issue” (Town of New Windsor v New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403, 404 [2005]; see El-Khoury v Karasik, 265 AD2d 372, 373-374 [1999]; Wesselmann v International Images, 259 AD2d 448 [1999]; Chalasani v State Bank of India, N.Y. Branch, 235 AD 2d 449, 450 [1997]). “[T]here is no fiduciary relationship between a franchisee and a franchisor” (Marcella & Co. v Avon Prods., 282 AD2d 718, 719 [2001]; see Wilmington Trust Co. v Burger King Corp., 34 AD3d 401 [2006]; Bevilacque v Ford Motor Co., 125 AD2d 516, 519 [1986]; Mobil Oil Corp. v Rubenfeld, 48 AD2d 428, 432 [1975], affd 40 NY2d 936 [1976]). Here, the defendant established, and the plaintiffs conceded, that the relationship between the parties is one of franchisor and franchisees. Therefore, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether a fiduciary relationship existed. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Miller, J.P., Lifson, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.