Behrle v. Behrle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Behrle v. Behrle

2017 NY Slip Op 3470, 150 A.D.3d 656, 53 N.Y.S.3d 697

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

DecidedMay 3, 2017

Docket2015-08496

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3470 (Behrle v. Behrle) 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

Behrle v. Behrle, 2017 NY Slip Op 3470, 150 A.D.3d 656, 53 N.Y.S.3d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the third-party defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Gerald E. Loehr, J.), dated January 21, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the third-party defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the third-party complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint is granted.

The plaintiff commenced this action against her husband, Fred Behrle (hereinafter Fred), for a divorce and ancillary relief. Fred commenced a third-party action against the third-party defendant, James Noble, the plaintiff’s son from a prior marriage, alleging that Noble breached a fiduciary duty to Fred by depleting the funds of a trust formed by the plaintiff and Fred. Noble moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the third-party complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. The Supreme *657 Court denied the motion. Noble appeals. During the pendency of this appeal, Fred died, and Keith Behrle and Scott Behrle, as co-executors of his estate, were substituted for Fred on this appeal.

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct (see Stortini v Pollis, 138 AD3d 977, 978-979 [2016]; Deblinger v Sani-Pine Prods. Co., Inc., 107 AD3d 659, 660 [2013]). Here, Noble established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third-party complaint by submitting evidence demonstrating that he did not owe a fiduciary duty to Fred, as he was merely a beneficiary under the trust. In opposition, Fred failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Noble’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Noble’s remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the third-party defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Gerald E. Loehr, J.), dated January 21, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the third-party defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the third-party complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint is granted.

The plaintiff commenced this action against her husband, Fred Behrle (hereinafter Fred), for a divorce and ancillary relief. Fred commenced a third-party action against the third-party defendant, James Noble, the plaintiff’s son from a prior marriage, alleging that Noble breached a fiduciary duty to Fred by depleting the funds of a trust formed by the plaintiff and Fred. Noble moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the third-party complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. The Supreme *657 Court denied the motion. Noble appeals. During the pendency of this appeal, Fred died, and Keith Behrle and Scott Behrle, as co-executors of his estate, were substituted for Fred on this appeal.

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct (see Stortini v Pollis, 138 AD3d 977, 978-979 [2016]; Deblinger v Sani-Pine Prods. Co., Inc., 107 AD3d 659, 660 [2013]). Here, Noble established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third-party complaint by submitting evidence demonstrating that he did not owe a fiduciary duty to Fred, as he was merely a beneficiary under the trust. In opposition, Fred failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Noble’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Noble’s remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3470, 150 A.D.3d 656, 53 N.Y.S.3d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behrle-v-behrle-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack