Berlin v. Jakobson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berlin v. Jakobson

137 A.D.3d 659, 26 N.Y.S.3d 863

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2016

Docket621 152263/15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 659 (Berlin v. Jakobson) 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

Berlin v. Jakobson, 137 A.D.3d 659, 26 N.Y.S.3d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December 8, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its *660 entirety, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the third cause of action insofar as asserted on behalf of 27-37 Management, to dismiss that part of the fourth cause of action as asserted on behalf of 27-37 Management for unjust enrichment, and to dismiss the fifth cause of action as to 27-37 Management, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The claim for breach of fiduciary duty, which described the relationship among the various companies and the role of defendants and identified a number of specific acts of misconduct, was pleaded with sufficient particularity (see Gall v Summit, Rovins & Feldesman, 222 AD2d 225, 226 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed 88 NY2d 919 [1996]; CPLR 3016 [b]). However, plaintiff’s failure to identify any damages sustained by 27-37 Management requires dismissal of the fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims asserted on its behalf (see Coleman v Fox Horan & Camerini, 274 AD2d 308, 309 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 767 [2000]; Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder, 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). The dismissal of the fiduciary claim as to 27-37 Management also warrants dismissal of the accounting claim as to that defendant.

While defendants assert certain releases as a bar to the fiduciary duty claims asserted on behalf of Waverly Properties and 27-37 Management for the first time on appeal, we can consider the argument because it cannot be avoided, turns on a question of law, and can be resolved on the face of the record (Rojas-Wassil v Villalona, 114 AD3d 517, 517 [1st Dept 2014]). However, given the narrow construction to be given a release, we conclude that these claims are not barred by the releases (see Lexington Ins. Co. v Combustion Eng’g, 264 AD2d 319, 322 [1st Dept 1999]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December 8, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its *660 entirety, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the third cause of action insofar as asserted on behalf of 27-37 Management, to dismiss that part of the fourth cause of action as asserted on behalf of 27-37 Management for unjust enrichment, and to dismiss the fifth cause of action as to 27-37 Management, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The claim for breach of fiduciary duty, which described the relationship among the various companies and the role of defendants and identified a number of specific acts of misconduct, was pleaded with sufficient particularity (see Gall v Summit, Rovins & Feldesman, 222 AD2d 225, 226 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed 88 NY2d 919 [1996]; CPLR 3016 [b]). However, plaintiff’s failure to identify any damages sustained by 27-37 Management requires dismissal of the fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims asserted on its behalf (see Coleman v Fox Horan & Camerini, 274 AD2d 308, 309 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 767 [2000]; Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder, 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012]). The dismissal of the fiduciary claim as to 27-37 Management also warrants dismissal of the accounting claim as to that defendant.

While defendants assert certain releases as a bar to the fiduciary duty claims asserted on behalf of Waverly Properties and 27-37 Management for the first time on appeal, we can consider the argument because it cannot be avoided, turns on a question of law, and can be resolved on the face of the record (Rojas-Wassil v Villalona, 114 AD3d 517, 517 [1st Dept 2014]). However, given the narrow construction to be given a release, we conclude that these claims are not barred by the releases (see Lexington Ins. Co. v Combustion Eng’g, 264 AD2d 319, 322 [1st Dept 1999]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 659, 26 N.Y.S.3d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berlin-v-jakobson-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack