Arnett v. Charles Morgan Securities Inc.

135 A.D.3d 502, 22 N.Y.S.3d 837
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 12, 2016
Docket16635 653445/13
StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.3d 502 (Arnett v. Charles Morgan Securities Inc.) 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
Arnett v. Charles Morgan Securities Inc., 135 A.D.3d 502, 22 N.Y.S.3d 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered September 10, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants, as controlling shareholders of nonparty the Enlightened Gourmet, Inc. (EGI), breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff, a minority shareholder and creditor of EGI. We affirm the dismissal of the claim, as plaintiff failed to show that defendants owed him a fiduciary duty. Plaintiff does not dispute defendants’ contention that Nevada, where EGI was incorporated, does not recognize a fiduciary duty owed to a corporation’s creditors by majority or controlling shareholders. To the extent he relies on RSL Communications PLC v Bildirici (649 F Supp 2d 184 [SD NY 2009], affd 412 Fed Appx 337 [2d Cir 2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 97 [2011]) in support of his argument that defendants *503 owe him a fiduciary duty under New York law, RSL and the cases cited therein state only that “officers and directors” of insolvent corporations owe creditors a fiduciary duty (649 F Supp 2d at 202 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that defendants were officers or directors of EGI. Further, his allegations that defendants controlled EGI are conclusory.

We decline to grant plaintiff leave to amend to assert a claim for fraud. Plaintiff never requested that relief before the motion court and, in any event, he fails to state a claim for fraud (see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]).

We have considered and rejected plaintiff’s remaining arguments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

RSL Communications Plc Ex Rel. Jervis v. Fisher
412 F. App'x 337 (Second Circuit, 2011)
RSL COMMUNICATIONS PLC v. Bildirici
649 F. Supp. 2d 184 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP
910 N.E.2d 976 (New York Court of Appeals, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 A.D.3d 502, 22 N.Y.S.3d 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnett-v-charles-morgan-securities-inc-nyappdiv-2016.