EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (2005)

Fiduciary relationships in New York include “those informal relations which exist whenever one man trusts in, and relies upon, another.” Id. at 904‐05; see also EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 20 (2005) (“[I]t is fundamental that fiduciary ‘liability is not dependent solely upon an agreement or contractual relation between the fiduciary and the beneficiary but results from the relation.’”).

See EBC I, Inc ., 5 N.Y.3d at 19 -20 , 799 N.Y.S.2d 170 , 832 N.E.2d 26 .

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; Eccles , 42 NY3d at 343; see also Lam v Weiss , 219 AD3d 713, 715 [2d Dept 2023] ["Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPL…

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

See EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 20 , 799 N.Y.S.2d 170 , 832 N.E.2d 26 (2005) (“If the parties ... do not create their own relationship of higher trust, courts should not ordinarily transport them to the higher realm of relationship and fashion the stricter duty for them.”).

Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382 , 521 N.Y.S.2d 653 , 516 N.E.2d 190 (1987)). "[S]uch remedies only apply in the absence of an express agreement; for the remedy is not really a contract at all, but rather a legal obligation imposed in order to prevent a party's unjust enrichment." Id. (quotation omitted); see also EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11 , 799 N.Y.S.2d 170 , 832 N.E.2d 26, 33-34 (2005) ("[P]laintiff fails to state a cause of action for unjust enrichment as the exi…

Dist. , 213 AD3d 959, 961, quoting EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 23).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I , Inc. v Goldman , Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see Druger , 207 AD3d at 1154).

Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish the allegations contained in the complaint is not part of the calculus in determining such a motion ( see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not considered when determining a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

On a motion to dismiss, the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and all factual allegations must be accepted as true; "[w]hether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see also 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co. , 98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002] ["Dismissal under CPLR 3211 [a] [1] is warranted onl…

We accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory' ( Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). 'Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss' ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005])" ( Pottorff v Centra Fin.

Morgan , 21 NY3d at 334 , quoting EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

See EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11 , 19 (2005) ("A fiduciary relationship exists between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relation.") (citation and quotation marks omitted).

On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, "the court must afford the pleadings a liberal construction, take the allegations of the complaint as true and provide the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19; see CPLR 3026). "'On a defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff's alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the pl…

Courts do not weigh “[w]hether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations” as part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss (EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

A court does not weigh “[w]hether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations” as part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss (EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

(See EBC I, Inc., v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; Frankv DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 AD2d 118, 120-21 [1st Dept 2002].) Motion sequence 003 Whether Plaintiff Has Adequately Alleged Proximate Causation 4 While defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs cause of action for a manufacturing defect based on the proximate cause issue, it is the only cause of action that defendants' do not separately contend is insufficiently pied. 153041/2024 KONG, SEUNGOOK vs.

(See EBC L Inc., v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; Frank v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 AD2d 118, 120-21 [1st Dept 2002].) Dismissal Against Unilever and Conopco 161675/2023 BARON, ROBERTA vs.

NO. 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2026 Page -2- Charitable Found., Inc. v PJT Partners, Inc., 40 NY3d 150 , 153 [2023], quoting EEC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I , Inc. v Goldman , Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I , Inc. v Goldman , Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see Moore Charitable Found. v PJT Partners , Inc. , 40 NY3d 150 , 153 [2023]).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I , Inc. v Goldman , Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see Moore Charitable Found. v PJT Partners , Inc. , 40 NY3d 150 , 153 [2023]).

Moreover, whether a petitioner can ultimately establish his or her allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss (see EEC l Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss." EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 (2005).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss." EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 (2005).

In assessing the relationship between parties, “where parties have entered into a contract, courts look to that agreement to discover the nexus of the parties’ relationship and the particular contractual expression establishing the parties’ interdependency.” EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 832 N.E.2d 26, 31 (N.Y. 2005) (alterations adopted and citation omitted).

"The criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one" ( Siegmund Strauss, Inc. v East 149th Realty Corp. , 104 AD3d 401, 403 [1st Dept 2013]), and "[w]hether [the] plaintiff can ultimately establish [his or her] allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see also Rubin v Poly Prep Country Day Sch. , 227 AD3d 741 [2d Dept 2024]).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish [their] allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see Cortlandt St.

Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" (EBC Iv Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

Therefore, in determining a motion to dismiss the court does not consider whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations (see EBC I Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

Co., 55 AD3d 493,497 [1st Dept 2008], lvdeniedl2 NY3d 713 [2009]; seeEBCI, Inc. vGoldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 (2005).

EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 (2005).

Co., 5 NY3d 561, 571 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) “A paper will qualify as ‘documentary evidence’ only if it satisfies the following criteria: (1) it is ‘unambiguous’; (2) it is of ‘undisputed authenticity’; and (3) its contents are ‘essentially undeniable.’” (VXI Lux Holdco S.A.R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC, 171 AD3d 189 , 193 [1st Dept 2019] [citation omitted].) “On a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider documents referenced in a complaint, even…

Under such circumstances, recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter are generally precluded ( see CSI Group, LLP v Harper, 153 AD3d 1314, 1317 [2d Dept 2017], citing EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 23 [2005]; Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is.

Indeed, "'whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss' 11 (id., citing EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]) .

Indeed, "'whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss' 11 (id., citing EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]) .

On a motion to dismiss, the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and all factual allegations must be accepted as true; "[w]hether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see also 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co. , 98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002] ["Dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) is warranted onl…

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations" is not considered when determining a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations" is not considered when determining a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

Plaintiffs do not allege that the attorney defendants had discretionary authority or [*3]control over the management or administration of the plan, and the complaint does not set forth allegations suggesting that a higher level of trust or control had been established between the attorney defendants and plaintiffs ( cf. Roni LLC v Arfa , 18 NY3d 846, 848-849 [2011]; EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 20 [2005]).

"Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish [their] allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see Cortlandt St.

NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2025 establish its allegations is not considered when determining a motion to dismiss under CPLR 32ll(a)(7) (EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]).

As discussed above, the proper inquiry here is whether the claimant has a cause of action, not whether it is properly stated. ( Hawkins v McCluskey , 79 AD2d 853 , 854 [4th Dept 1980].) Although the claimant must ultimately prove that physical conduct placed him in imminent apprehension of harmful contact to establish a cause of action for assault ( Bastein v Sotto , 299 AD2d 432, 433 [2d Dept 2002]; Charkhy v Altman , 252 AD2d 413 [1st Dept 1998]), whether he can ultimately…

“A well-established definition of a fiduciary relationship under New York law is a relationship where ‘confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the other.’” Uddo v. DeLuca, 837 F. App’x 39 , 42 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Roni LLC v. Arfa, 18 N.Y.3d 846, 848 (2011)); see also EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 19 (2005) (“A fiduciary relationship exists between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for or …

See, e.g., EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 20 (2005) (“If the parties . . . do not create their own relationship of higher trust, courts should not ordinarily transport them to the higher realm of relationship and fashion the stricter duty for them.”).

See, e.g., EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 20 (2005) (“If the parties . . . do not create their own relationship of higher trust, courts should not ordinarily transport them to the higher realm of relationship and fashion the stricter duty for them.”).

Application Under New York law, “the existence of a valid contract governing the subject matter generally precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter.” EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 23 (2005) (citing Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R.