aiding and abetting claim in New York

2022Ustuntas's beneficial interest in these entities establishes, at most, their constructive knowledge of his breach of fiduciary duty[*2], which is insufficient to support an aiding and abetting claim ( id. at 126 ).

2022Ustuntas's beneficial interest in these entities establishes, at most, their constructive knowledge of his breach of fiduciary duty[*2], which is insufficient to support an aiding and abetting claim ( id. at 126 ).

2023Importantly, where a plaintiff cannot make out an underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty, an aiding and abetting claim cannot stand ( see Oddo Asset Mgt. v Barclays Bank PLC , 19 NY3d 584, 594 [2012] ["we hold that plaintiff failed to allege facts giving rise to a fiduciary duty owed to it, and therefore (defendants) cannot be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of such fiduciary duty"]; McBride v KPMG Intl. , 135 AD3d 576, 579 [1st Dept 2016] "The Ryans' claim against Avellino for aiding and abetting fiduciary duty fails because there was no underlying breach of fiduciary duty"]; P

2023Importantly, where a plaintiff cannot make out an underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty, an aiding and abetting claim cannot stand ( see Oddo Asset Mgt. v Barclays Bank PLC , 19 NY3d 584, 594 [2012] ["we hold that plaintiff failed to allege facts giving rise to a fiduciary duty owed to it, and therefore (defendants) cannot be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of such fiduciary duty"]; McBride v KPMG Intl. , 135 AD3d 576, 579 [1st Dept 2016] "The Ryans' claim against Avellino for aiding and abetting fiduciary duty fails because there was no underlying breach of fiduciary duty"]; P

2019Co , 64 AD3d 472, 476 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009] [the elements of an aiding and abetting claim include: "(1) the existence of an underlying fraud; (2) knowledge of this fraud on the part of the aider and abettor; and (3) substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in achievement of the fraud"] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2015Co. ( 64 AD3d 472 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009]), defendants contend that the aiding and abetting claim is precluded by disclaimers in the contracts at issue.

2024LLC , 203 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2022]).

2024LLC , 203 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2022]).

2024Although plaintiff's causes of action are alleged against the School District and Valenti, together, the "State HRL does not render employees liable as individual employers." Doe v Bloomberg, L.P ., 36 NY3d 450 , 458 (2021). [*7]Individual employees may be held liable under Executive Law § 296 (6), which states that "[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this article, or to attempt to do so." To state an aiding and abetting claim, plaintiff must allege that an individual defendant "ac

2024Although plaintiff's causes of action are alleged against the School District and Valenti, together, the "State HRL does not render employees liable as individual employers." Doe v Bloomberg, L.P ., 36 NY3d 450 , 458 (2021). [*7]Individual employees may be held liable under Executive Law § 296 (6), which states that "[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this article, or to attempt to do so." To state an aiding and abetting claim, plaintiff must allege that an individual defendant "ac

2024Without a viable underlying conversion claim, the aiding and abetting claim must therefore be dismissed ( see Dragons 516 Ltd. v GDC 138 E 50 LLC , 201 AD3d 463, 464 [1st Dept 2022]).

2024Without a viable underlying conversion claim, the aiding and abetting claim must therefore be dismissed ( see Dragons 516 Ltd. v GDC 138 E 50 LLC , 201 AD3d 463, 464 [1st Dept 2022]).

2023The claim for conspiracy to commit fraud also fails because the allegations of an "agreement among the conspirators" are "conclusory" ( Kovkov , 182 AD3d at 419 ), while the aiding and abetting claim fails because the complaint includes only "'allegations which would be sufficient to state a claim against the principal participants in the fraud' combined with conclusory [*3]allegations that the aider and abettor had actual knowledge of such fraud" ( Goel v Ramachandran , 111 AD3d 783 , 792 [2d Dept 2013], quoting National Westminster Bank v Weksel , 124 AD2d 144, 149 [1st Dept 1987], lv denied

2023The claim for conspiracy to commit fraud also fails because the allegations of an "agreement among the conspirators" are "conclusory" ( Kovkov , 182 AD3d at 419 ), while the aiding and abetting claim fails because the complaint includes only "'allegations which would be sufficient to state a claim against the principal participants in the fraud' combined with conclusory [*3]allegations that the aider and abettor had actual knowledge of such fraud" ( Goel v Ramachandran , 111 AD3d 783 , 792 [2d Dept 2013], quoting National Westminster Bank v Weksel , 124 AD2d 144, 149 [1st Dept 1987], lv denied

2023The claim under English law alleging unlawful means conspiracy conflicts with New York law, in that it allows for a conspiracy claim without the commission of an underlying tort ( compare In re Nortel Networks, Inc. , 469 BR 478, 513 [D Del Bankr 2012] [English law allows claim for agreement "to do an unlawful act" with intent to harm, which causes harm to a plaintiff], with Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen , 68 NY2d 968, 969 [1986] ["a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action"]).

2023The claim under English law alleging unlawful means conspiracy conflicts with New York law, in that it allows for a conspiracy claim without the commission of an underlying tort ( compare In re Nortel Networks, Inc. , 469 BR 478, 513 [D Del Bankr 2012] [English law allows claim for agreement "to do an unlawful act" with intent to harm, which causes harm to a plaintiff], with Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen , 68 NY2d 968, 969 [1986] ["a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action"]).

2023The claim under English law alleging unlawful means conspiracy conflicts with New York law, in that it allows for a conspiracy claim without the commission of an underlying tort ( compare In re Nortel Networks, Inc. , 469 BR 478, 513 [D Del Bankr 2012] [English law allows claim for agreement "to do an unlawful act" with intent to harm, which causes harm to a plaintiff], with Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen , 68 NY2d 968, 969 [1986] ["a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action"]).

2023The claim under English law alleging unlawful means conspiracy conflicts with New York law, in that it allows for a conspiracy claim without the commission of an underlying tort ( compare In re Nortel Networks, Inc. , 469 BR 478, 513 [D Del Bankr 2012] [English law allows claim for agreement "to do an unlawful act" with intent to harm, which causes harm to a plaintiff], with Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen , 68 NY2d 968, 969 [1986] ["a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action"]).

2022Questions of fact exist as to whether plaintiff's alleged trade secrets were, in fact, secret, as the parties submitted sharply conflicting evidence on this issue ( see Ashland Mgt. v Janien, 82 NY2d 395, 407 [1993]).

2022Questions of fact exist as to whether plaintiff's alleged trade secrets were, in fact, secret, as the parties submitted sharply conflicting evidence on this issue ( see Ashland Mgt. v Janien, 82 NY2d 395, 407 [1993]).

2021To the extent Tomka v Seiler Corp. ( 66 F3d 1295, 1317 [2d Cir 1995]) and its progeny hold otherwise, we decline to follow them.

2021To the extent Tomka v Seiler Corp. ( 66 F3d 1295, 1317 [2d Cir 1995]) and its progeny hold otherwise, we decline to follow them.

2014The complaint sufficiently pleads that Konigsberg and KW aided and abetted Mendelow’s fraud (see Oster v Kirschner, 77 AD3d 51, 55 [1st Dept 2010]; see also Stanfield Offshore Leveraged Assets, Ltd. v Metropolitan Life Ins.

2014The complaint sufficiently pleads that Konigsberg and KW aided and abetted Mendelow’s fraud (see Oster v Kirschner, 77 AD3d 51, 55 [1st Dept 2010]; see also Stanfield Offshore Leveraged Assets, Ltd. v Metropolitan Life Ins.

2014Kagan v HMC-New York, Inc., 94 AD3d 67, 73 [1st Dept 2012]; Global Mins. & Metals Corp. v Holme, 35 AD3d 93, 102 [1st Dept 2006].) Since the underlying section 487 claim has been dismissed, the aiding and abetting claim necessarily fails.

2008The aiding-and-abetting claim must thus fail (see Global Mins. & Metals Corp. v Holme, 35 AD3d 93, 101 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).

2013Moore asserts that the first amended complaint fails because it does not allege that Moore had actual knowledge of the facts supporting each and every element of the fraud cause of action against ICP It claims that, at best, the first amended complaint alleges that Moore had constructive knowledge of the facts, which it correctly notes is insufficient on an aiding and abetting claim (see CRT Invs., Ltd. v BDO Seidman, LLP, 85 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2011]).

2013Moore asserts that the first amended complaint fails because it does not allege that Moore had actual knowledge of the facts supporting each and every element of the fraud cause of action against ICP It claims that, at best, the first amended complaint alleges that Moore had constructive knowledge of the facts, which it correctly notes is insufficient on an aiding and abetting claim (see CRT Invs., Ltd. v BDO Seidman, LLP, 85 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2011]).

2026Although the aiding and abetting claim is based on some of the same operative facts, there is no other nexus with the confidentiality agreement ( see Credit Suisse Sec. [USA] LLC v Hilliard , 469 F Supp 2d 103, 107-108 [SD NY 2007]).

2026Although the aiding and abetting claim is based on some of the same operative facts, there is no other nexus with the confidentiality agreement ( see Credit Suisse Sec. [USA] LLC v Hilliard , 469 F Supp 2d 103, 107-108 [SD NY 2007]).

2026Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), as plaintiffs failed to plead a sufficient nexus between the aiding and abetting claim and the confidentiality agreement ( see U.S. Immigration Fund LLC v Litowitz , 182 AD3d 505, 505-506 [1st Dept 2020]; see also Aerogen LLC v Tapjets Holdings Inc., 238 AD3d 532, 533 [1st Dept 2025]).

2026Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), as plaintiffs failed to plead a sufficient nexus between the aiding and abetting claim and the confidentiality agreement ( see U.S. Immigration Fund LLC v Litowitz , 182 AD3d 505, 505-506 [1st Dept 2020]; see also Aerogen LLC v Tapjets Holdings Inc., 238 AD3d 532 , 533 [1st Dept 2025]).

2025"An individual may be liable for discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL as either an employer [Executive Law § 296 (1)], or as an 'aider and abettor'". ( Krause v Lancer & Loader Group, LLC , 40 Misc 3d 385, 398 [Sup Ct 2013] [citing to Executive Law § 296 (6)]).

2024Years later, the Second Circuit also held that the plaintiffs’ complaint in that case adequately stated an aiding-and-abetting claim against LCB under the Anti-Terrorism Act -2- -3- No. 29 of 1990 (ATA) ( 18 USC § 2331 et seq.), as amended in 2016 by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) ( 18 USC § 2333 [d] [2]) (see Kaplan v Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 999 F3d 842, 847-848, 864 [2d Cir 2021]).

2023Importantly, where a plaintiff cannot make out an underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty, an aiding and abetting claim cannot stand ( see Oddo Asset Mgt. v Barclays Bank PLC , 19 NY3d 584, 594 [2012] ["we hold that plaintiff failed to allege facts giving rise to a fiduciary duty owed to it, and therefore (defendants) cannot be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of such fiduciary duty"]; McBride v KPMG Intl. , 135 AD3d 576, 579 [1st Dept 2016] "The Ryans' claim against Avellino for aiding and abetting fiduciary duty fails because there was no underlying breach of fiduciary duty"]; P

2023Importantly, where a plaintiff cannot make out an underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty, an aiding and abetting claim cannot stand ( see Oddo Asset Mgt. v Barclays Bank PLC , 19 NY3d 584, 594 [2012] ["we hold that plaintiff failed to allege facts giving rise to a fiduciary duty owed to it, and therefore (defendants) cannot be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of such fiduciary duty"]; McBride v KPMG Intl. , 135 AD3d 576, 579 [1st Dept 2016] "The Ryans' claim against Avellino for aiding and abetting fiduciary duty fails because there was no underlying breach of fiduciary duty"]; P

2023Importantly, where a plaintiff cannot make out an underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty, an aiding and abetting claim cannot stand ( see Oddo Asset Mgt. v Barclays Bank PLC , 19 NY3d 584, 594 [2012] ["we hold that plaintiff failed to allege facts giving rise to a fiduciary duty owed to it, and therefore (defendants) cannot be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of such fiduciary duty"]; McBride v KPMG Intl. , 135 AD3d 576, 579 [1st Dept 2016] "The Ryans' claim against Avellino for aiding and abetting fiduciary duty fails because there was no underlying breach of fiduciary duty"]; P

2023Importantly, where a plaintiff cannot make out an underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty, an aiding and abetting claim cannot stand ( see Oddo Asset Mgt. v Barclays Bank PLC , 19 NY3d 584, 594 [2012] ["we hold that plaintiff failed to allege facts giving rise to a fiduciary duty owed to it, and therefore (defendants) cannot be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of such fiduciary duty"]; McBride v KPMG Intl. , 135 AD3d 576, 579 [1st Dept 2016] "The Ryans' claim against Avellino for aiding and abetting fiduciary duty fails because there was no underlying breach of fiduciary duty"]; P

2016Auth., 893 F Supp 2d 574, 597 [SD NY 2012]).