16 East 96th Apartment Corp. v. Neubohn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

16 East 96th Apartment Corp. v. Neubohn

50 A.D.3d 397, 854 N.Y.S.2d 312

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 10, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 397 (16 East 96th Apartment Corp. v. Neubohn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

16 East 96th Apartment Corp. v. Neubohn, 50 A.D.3d 397, 854 N.Y.S.2d 312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered August 15, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendants’ first counterclaim, and granted the counterclaim defendants’ motion to dismiss the second counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The first counterclaim alleged that plaintiffs individual directors breached their fiduciary duties by singling defendants out for disparate treatment. The second counterclaim alleged that Rosette Willig assisted the individual directors in breaching their fiduciary duties.

“Individual directors” may not be subject to liability without allegations of separate tortious acts (DeCastro v Bhokari, 201 AD2d 382 [1994]; see also Konrad v 136 E. 64th St. Corp., 246 AD2d 324 [1998]). The proposed cause of action in the first counterclaim ascribes no independent tortious conduct to any individual director, and is thus deficient as a matter of law. Since defendants have failed to state a claim sufficiently for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors, their claim against Rosette Willig also fails.

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered August 15, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendants’ first counterclaim, and granted the counterclaim defendants’ motion to dismiss the second counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The first counterclaim alleged that plaintiffs individual directors breached their fiduciary duties by singling defendants out for disparate treatment. The second counterclaim alleged that Rosette Willig assisted the individual directors in breaching their fiduciary duties.

“Individual directors” may not be subject to liability without allegations of separate tortious acts (DeCastro v Bhokari, 201 AD2d 382 [1994]; see also Konrad v 136 E. 64th St. Corp., 246 AD2d 324 [1998]). The proposed cause of action in the first counterclaim ascribes no independent tortious conduct to any individual director, and is thus deficient as a matter of law. Since defendants have failed to state a claim sufficiently for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors, their claim against Rosette Willig also fails.

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 397, 854 N.Y.S.2d 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/16-east-96th-apartment-corp-v-neubohn-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack