breach of fiduciary claim in New York

2025Defendant remains is still as [sic] a trustee, and hence a fiduciary to the Trust to this very day. . . ." As the Second Department held very recently, "On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory." Kisla v. Jefferson , 237 AD3d 1082 , 1083 (2d Dept.

2025Defendant remains is still as [sic] a trustee, and hence a fiduciary to the Trust to this very day. . . ." As the Second Department held very recently, "On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory." Kisla v. Jefferson , 237 AD3d 1082 , 1083 (2d Dept.

2024Since plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Garcia and does not allege he committed fraud, the breach of fiduciary claim is subject to the three-year statute of limitations ( see Jadidian v Goldstein , 210 AD3d 969, 970 [2d Dept 2022]; LMEG Wireless, LLC v Farro , 190 AD3d 716 , 719—20 [2d Dept 2021]; Siegler v Lippe , 189 AD3d 903, 905 [2d Dept 2020]).

2024Since plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Garcia and does not allege he committed fraud, the breach of fiduciary claim is subject to the three-year statute of limitations ( see Jadidian v Goldstein , 210 AD3d 969, 970 [2d Dept 2022]; LMEG Wireless, LLC v Farro , 190 AD3d 716 , 719—20 [2d Dept 2021]; Siegler v Lippe , 189 AD3d 903, 905 [2d Dept 2020]).

2020Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim in opposition to T&H's motion to dismiss, and thus had abandoned this claim ( see Saidin v Negron , 136 AD3d 458 , 459 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 1069 [2016], cert denied US , 138 S Ct 108 [2017]).

2020Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim in opposition to T&H's motion to dismiss, and thus had abandoned this claim ( see Saidin v Negron , 136 AD3d 458 , 459 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 1069 [2016], cert denied US , 138 S Ct 108 [2017]).

2020Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim in opposition to T&H's motion to dismiss, and thus had abandoned this claim ( see Saidin v Negron , 136 AD3d 458 , 459 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 1069 [2016], cert denied US , 138 S Ct 108 [2017]).

2020Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim in opposition to T&H's motion to dismiss, and thus had abandoned this claim ( see Saidin v Negron , 136 AD3d 458 , 459 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 1069 [2016], cert denied US , 138 S Ct 108 [2017]).

2020Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim in opposition to T&H's motion to dismiss, and thus had abandoned this claim ( see Saidin v Negron , 136 AD3d 458 , 459 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 1069 [2016], cert denied US , 138 S Ct 108 [2017]).

2020Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim in opposition to T&H's motion to dismiss, and thus had abandoned this claim ( see Saidin v Negron , 136 AD3d 458 , 459 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 1069 [2016], cert denied US , 138 S Ct 108 [2017]).

2024In addition, the unjust enrichment claim alleging that Plaintiff received payment for parking but failed to deposit the monies is duplicative of the breach of fiduciary claim (Emic Corp. v Barenblatt, 226 AD3d 502 ,503 [1st Dept 2024] [finding that an unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed as duplicative of a breach of fiduciary duty claim if it arises from the same facts and seeks the same damages]).

2021Subsections (iv) and (vii) of paragraph 204 of the proposed breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, which allege that defendants acted in bad faith by failing to cure illegal conditions and by intruding into plaintiffs' home, are pleaded with the requisite particularity for a breach of fiduciary claim ( see Parker Waichman LLP v Squier, Knapp & Dunn Communications, Inc. , 138 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2016]; CPLR 3016[b]).

2020Where, as here, the breach of fiduciary claim arises out of the same facts and seeks the same damages as the legal malpractice claim, the breach of fiduciary duty claim will be dismissed as duplicative ( see Courtney v McDonald , 176 AD3d 645 [1st Dept 2019]).

2014A distributorship agreement may, in some rare instances, create a confidential relationship out of which a duty of fiduciary care arises (see, Lake Erie Distribs. v Marlet Importing, 221 AD2d 954, 955 ).

2010We further conclude that the Surrogate properly determined that the breach of fiduciary claim against respondent law firm was, in essence, a claim for legal malpractice and thus was barred by the three-year statute of limitations {see CPLR 214 [6]; Harris v Kahn, Hoffman, Nonenmacher & Hochman, LLP, 59 AD3d 390 [2009]).

2010Even assuming, arguendo, that the petition states a separate claim for breach of fiduciary duty against respondent law firm, we conclude that such claim arises from the same facts as those from which the legal malpractice claim arises, and thus the Surrogate properly dismissed that claim as duplicative of the legal malpractice claim (see TVGA Eng’g, Surveying, P.C. v Gallick [appeal No. 2], 45 AD3d 1252 , 1256 [2007]).

2005(Kramer, 546 A2d at 349 .) In holding that a former shareholder does have standing to litigate claims of breach of duty arising from the merger, the court stated, “direct attacks against a given corporate transaction (attacks involving fair dealing or fair price) give complaining shareholders standing to pursue individual actions even after they are cashed-out through the effectuation of a merger.” (Id. at 354.) Specifically at issue in Kramer , however, is the legal limbo former shareholders find themselves in subsequent to being cashed out, as in addition to losing their equity interest in t