breach of fiduciary duty claim in New York

2025Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213 (8)." (IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 139 [2009] [citations omitted].) 654690/2022 DIXIE, DINO vs.

2025To meet its burden, the defendant must establish, inter alia, when the plaintiff's cause of action accrued." (Lebedev v Blavatnik, 144 AD3d 24, 28 [1st Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) "A breach of fiduciary duty claim accrues where the fiduciary openly repudiates his or her obligation-i.e., once damages are sustained." (Id. at 28 [citation omitted].) "To determine timeliness, [the court] consider[s] whether plaintiff's complaint must, as a matter of law, be read to allege damages suffered so early as to render the claim time-barred." (IDT Corp., 12 NY3d at 140 .)

2017To the extent the breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from Dunlop’s entering into the Termination Agreement, it is subject to a three-year, rather than a six-year, statute of limitations, because the fraud allegations are incidental to the claim, and only money damages are sought (see Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 119 [1st Dept 2003]).

2016The statute of limita *29 tions on a breach of fiduciary duty claim is three years where (as here) money damages are sought (see IDT Corp., 12 NY3d at 139 ; see also CPLR 213 [1]; 214 [4]; Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 118 [1st Dept 2003]).

2025However, a breach of fiduciary duty claim is also required to be pleaded with specific particularity under CPLR 3016 (b) ( see Dineen v Wilkens , 155 AD3d 607, 609 [2d Dept 2017]; Palmetto Partners, L.P. v AJW Qualified Partners, LLC , 83 AD3d 804, 808 [2d Dept 2011]).

2025However, a breach of fiduciary duty claim is also required to be pleaded with specific particularity under CPLR 3016 (b) ( see Dineen v Wilkens , 155 AD3d 607, 609 [2d Dept 2017]; Palmetto Partners, L.P. v AJW Qualified Partners, LLC , 83 AD3d 804, 808 [2d Dept 2011]).

2022We find that the allegations supporting the breach of fiduciary duty claim were sufficiently particular, notwithstanding that plaintiff did not specifically list each individual transaction, because plaintiff's allegations that the overcharging and illicit finder's fees, and Taufiq's misrepresentations regarding them, affected all of their contracts with Exit between 2010 and 2018 were sufficient to inform Taufiq of the nature of the claims and to enable him to mount a defense ( see generally Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]).

2013The motion court correctly dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim, as there was no attorney-client relationship and no other factual allegations establishing such a duty (see Eurycleia Partners, 12 NY3d at 562 ).

2018In the attorney liability context, the breach of fiduciary duty claim is governed by the same standard as a legal malpractice claim ( see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. , 10 AD3d 267 , 271-272 [1st Dept 2004]).

2014The court properly dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim, as plaintiff failed to adequately allege that defendant’s conduct caused any ascertainable damages (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 271-272 [1st Dept 2004]).

2024Consulting, Inc. v Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP , 110 AD3d 550 , 551 [1st [*13]Dept 2013]; Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP , 82 AD3d 435, 436 [1st Dept 2011]).

2024Consulting, Inc. v Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP , 110 AD3d 550 , 551 [1st [*13]Dept 2013]; Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP , 82 AD3d 435, 436 [1st Dept 2011]).

2024Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the breach of fiduciary duty claim was not tolled by the open repudiation doctrine, which only applies to claims for equitable relief ( Cusimano v Schnurr , 137 AD3d 527 , 530 [1st Dept 2016]).

2024Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the breach of fiduciary duty claim was not tolled by the open repudiation doctrine, which only applies to claims for equitable relief ( Cusimano v Schnurr , 137 AD3d 527 , 530 [1st Dept 2016]).

2024Since plaintiff claims Garcia breached his fiduciary duty by opening competing restaurants from 2004 to 2011, and plaintiff commenced this action in 2018, the breach of fiduciary duty claim is time-barred ( see Jadidian , 210 AD3d at 970 ).

2024Since plaintiff claims Garcia breached his fiduciary duty by opening competing restaurants from 2004 to 2011, and plaintiff commenced this action in 2018, the breach of fiduciary duty claim is time-barred ( see Jadidian , 210 AD3d at 970 ).

2024The proponent of an action alleging breach of fiduciary duty is held to the heightened pleading requirement promulgated by CPLR § 3016(b) and as such, where the damages alleged are threadbare and conclusory, the complaint must be dismissed ( Mann v Sasson , 186 AD3d 823 , 824 [2d Dept 2020] ["Here, the sixth cause of action, alleging breach of fiduciary duty against the Berger defendants, contained only bare and conclusory allegations related to damages, without any supporting detail, and failed to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3016(b)."]; see Theaprin Pharm., Inc. v Conway , 137 AD3d 1254,

2024The proponent of an action alleging breach of fiduciary duty is held to the heightened pleading requirement promulgated by CPLR § 3016(b) and as such, where the damages alleged are threadbare and conclusory, the complaint must be dismissed ( Mann v Sasson , 186 AD3d 823, 824 [2d Dept 2020] ["Here, the sixth cause of action, alleging breach of fiduciary duty against the Berger defendants, contained only bare and conclusory allegations related to damages, without any supporting detail, and failed to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3016(b)."]; see Theaprin Pharm., Inc. v Conway , 137 AD3d 1254,

2023Any resultant harm from the alleged demotion of plaintiff Harry Rhulen and nonpayment of invoices of nonparty CrisisRisk LLC (formed by plaintiffs) was harm caused to them as parties to the relevant contracts, i.e., the employment agreements and the CrisisRisk LLC/nonparty Firestorm entities contract — not as Rekor shareholders, and thus is not a proper basis for a breach of fiduciary duty claim ( see Nemec v Shrader , 991 A2d 1120, 1129 [Del 2010]; Batkin v Softbank Holdings , 270 AD2d 177, 178 [1st Dept 2000]).

2023Any resultant harm from the alleged demotion of plaintiff Harry Rhulen and nonpayment of invoices of nonparty CrisisRisk LLC (formed by plaintiffs) was harm caused to them as parties to the relevant contracts, i.e., the employment agreements and the CrisisRisk LLC/nonparty Firestorm entities contract — not as Rekor shareholders, and thus is not a proper basis for a breach of fiduciary duty claim ( see Nemec v Shrader , 991 A2d 1120, 1129 [Del 2010]; Batkin v Softbank Holdings , 270 AD2d 177, 178 [1st Dept 2000]).

2021A breach of fiduciary duty claim is not duplicative, however, if "fiduciary 'liability is not dependent solely upon an agreement or contractual relation between the fiduciary and the beneficiary but results from the relation'" ( EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 20 [2005], quoting Restatement [Second] of Torts § 874, Comment b; see New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v Program Risk Mgt., Inc. , 155 AD3d 1484, 1485 [2017]).

2021Clare's defendants and the diocesan defendants breached their fiduciary duties in various respects and, accepting the foregoing as true, we agree with Supreme Court that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a breach of fiduciary duty claim against them ( see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d at 20 ; State of N.Y.

2019To the extent the breach of fiduciary duty claim is based on Cordial's failure to obtain an affirmation of ACDBE certification, it is duplicative of the breach of contract claims ( see William Kaufman Org. v Graham & James , 269 AD2d 171, 173 [1st Dept 2000]).

2003The breach of fiduciary duty claim was properly dismissed on the alternative ground that it is duplicative of the breach of contract claim (William Kaufman Org. v Graham & James, 269 AD2d 171, 173 [2000]; Perl, 230 AD2d at 666 ).

2015That rule applies only to claims for accounting or equitable relief, and plaintiffs’ claims are solely at law (Ingham v Thompson, 88 AD3d 607, 608 [1st Dept 2011]).

2014Given this Court’s prior determination that, based on the allegations of actual fraud, the breach of fiduciary duty claim against defendant Joel Kolk was subject to the six-year limita *548 tions period (Lim, 111 AD3d at 519), that limitations period also applies to the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim against defendant (see Ingham v Thompson, 88 AD3d 607, 608 [1st Dept 2011]).

2013Given that the fraud claim was deficient, the only branch of the fiduciary duty claim that could have remained was one for “injury to property” However, that claim is time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [4]; Yatter v Morris Agency, 256 AD2d 260, 261 [1st Dept 1998]), as the alleged injury occurred more than three years before the filing of this action.

2004A breach of fiduciary duty claim is governed by either a three-year or six-year limitation period, depending on the nature of the relief sought (see Yatter v William Morris Agency, 256 AD2d 260, 261 [1998]).

2024However, as with the conversion claim, when a cause of action for a breach of fiduciary duty is "premised upon the same facts and seek identical damages" as a breach of contract claim the breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed ( Chowaiki & Co. Fine Art Ltd. v Lacher, 115 AD3d 600 [1st Dept 2014]).

2024However, as with the conversion claim, when a cause of action for a breach of fiduciary duty is "premised upon the same facts and seek identical damages" as a breach of contract claim the breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed ( Chowaiki & Co. Fine Art Ltd. v Lacher, 115 AD3d 600 [1st Dept 2014]).

2026A claim under the faithless servant doctrine is viable even absent a showing of damages to the corporation ( see Feiger v Iral Jewelry , 41 NY2d 928, 928-929 [1977]; Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v Feldman , 977 F3d 216, 242 [2d Cir 2020]), and damages awarded on a faithless servant claim (i.e., recoupment of salary) can satisfy the damage element of a breach of fiduciary duty claim ( see Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP , 144 AD3d 557, 563 [1st Dept 2016]; Yukos , 977 F3d at 242).

2026A claim under the faithless servant doctrine is viable even absent a showing of damages to the corporation ( see Feiger v Iral Jewelry , 41 NY2d 928, 928-929 [1977]; Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v Feldman , 977 F3d 216, 242 [2d Cir 2020]), and damages awarded on a faithless servant claim (i.e., recoupment of salary) can satisfy the damage element of a breach of fiduciary duty claim ( see Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP , 144 AD3d 557, 563 [1st Dept 2016]; Yukos , 977 F3d at 242).

2025However, a breach of fiduciary duty claim is also required to be pleaded with specific particularity under CPLR 3016 (b) ( see Dineen v Wilkens , 155 AD3d 607, 609 [2d Dept 2017]; Palmetto Partners, L.P. v AJW Qualified Partners, LLC , 83 AD3d 804, 808 [2d Dept 2011]).

2025However, a breach of fiduciary duty claim is also required to be pleaded with specific particularity under CPLR 3016 (b) ( see Dineen v Wilkens , 155 AD3d 607, 609 [2d Dept 2017]; Palmetto Partners, L.P. v AJW Qualified Partners, LLC , 83 AD3d 804, 808 [2d Dept 2011]).

2025Co. of Am. , 191 AD3d at 913 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2024"Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)" ( id. at 913 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2025Realty's fiduciary duty did not extend to protecting plaintiff Bay Towers Associates (BTA) from the foreclosure action of defendant MPM Limited Partnership, a third-party lender ( see Besen v Farhadian , 195 AD3d 548, 549-550 [1st Dept 2021]).

2022The breach of fiduciary duty claim against Taufiq should be reinstated, as an agent has a duty to make full disclosure to its principal of any conflicts of interest and there is no requirement of justifiable reliance for such a claim ( see Frame v Maynard , 83 AD3d 599, 602 [1st Dept 2011]; TPL Assoc. v Helmsley-Spear, Inc. , 146 AD2d 468, 470-471 [1st Dept 1989]; see also generally Besen v Farhadian , 195 AD3d 548, 549-550 [1st Dept 2021]).

2025Corp. , 110 AD3d at 106).

2025Corp. , 110 AD3d at 106).

2025See Celle v Barclays Bank P.L.C., 48 AD3d 301, 302 (1st Dept. 2008), citing Pane v Citibank, N.A., 19 AD3d 278, 279 (1st Dept. 2005).

2024See, e.g., Celle v. Barclays Bank P.L.C., 48 A.D.3d 301, 302 (1st Dept. 2008).

2025There was no such option, but only an option to purchase the "rights to direct the day to day management of ICPAM." Even if not so limited, the breach of fiduciary duty claim also fails for lack of an "identifiable loss" ( Gibbs v Breed, Abbott & Morgan , 271 AD2d 180, 189 [1st Dept 2000]).

2025There was no such option, but only an option to purchase the "rights to direct the day to day management of ICPAM." Even if not so limited, the breach of fiduciary duty claim also fails for lack of an "identifiable loss" ( Gibbs v Breed, Abbott & Morgan , 271 AD2d 180, 189 [1st Dept 2000]).

2025While Baker Botts asserts that this claim should be dismissed as duplicative of the dismissed legal malpractice claim ( see Ullmann-Schneider v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, P.C. , 121 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2014]), absent the written retainer agreement, which was not included in the record on appeal, a defense as to the scope of its representation cannot conclusively be established ( see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. , 10 AD3d 267, 270-271 [1st Dept 2004]). "[A]s a dispute exists as to the application of the retainer agreement as to defendant, plaintiffs need

2025While Baker Botts asserts that this claim should be dismissed as duplicative of the dismissed legal malpractice claim ( see Ullmann-Schneider v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, P.C. , 121 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2014]), absent the written retainer agreement, which was not included in the record on appeal, a defense as to the scope of its representation cannot conclusively be established ( see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. , 10 AD3d 267, 270-271 [1st Dept 2004]). "[A]s a dispute exists as to the application of the retainer agreement as to defendant, plaintiffs need

2024The court correctly found that plaintiff's allegations, along with two affidavits supporting her claim that Bern represented her sufficiently pleaded the requisite elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim" (internal citations omitted).]; Keller v Loews Corp. , 69 AD3d 451, 451 [1st Dept 2010]).

2024The court correctly found that plaintiff's allegations, along with two affidavits supporting her claim that Bern represented her sufficiently pleaded the requisite elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim" (internal citations omitted).]; Keller v Loews Corp. , 69 AD3d 451, 451 [1st Dept 2010]).

2024Servs., 305 AD2d 268, 269 [1st Dept 2003]) because it alleges that defendants had a duty to distribute settlement proceeds in accordance with the provisions [*3]of the contract and seeks the same damages as the contract claim.

2024Servs., 305 AD2d 268, 269 [1st Dept 2003]) because it alleges that defendants had a duty to distribute settlement proceeds in accordance with the provisions [*3]of the contract and seeks the same damages as the contract claim.