Fieldstone, Inc. v. Chapman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fieldstone, Inc. v. Chapman

284 A.D.2d 195, 726 N.Y.S.2d 261, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6161

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

DecidedJune 14, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 195 (Fieldstone, Inc. v. Chapman) 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

Fieldstone, Inc. v. Chapman, 284 A.D.2d 195, 726 N.Y.S.2d 261, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2000, which, in an action by a corporation against a former employee for breach of fiduciary duty, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The order should be affirmed even assuming the applicability of the more stringent standard of causation urged by defen[196]*196dant (see, LNC Invs. v First Fid. Bank, 173 F3d 454, 465-466). While the decision to terminate plaintiffs participation as an underwriter in the subject public offering could only have been made by the company undergoing a public offering or its agents, the complaint contains allegations concerning that company’s relationship with defendant sufficient to permit a finding that it would not have terminated plaintiffs participation but for the alleged conversations it had with defendant. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2000, which, in an action by a corporation against a former employee for breach of fiduciary duty, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The order should be affirmed even assuming the applicability of the more stringent standard of causation urged by defen[196]*196dant (see, LNC Invs. v First Fid. Bank, 173 F3d 454, 465-466). While the decision to terminate plaintiffs participation as an underwriter in the subject public offering could only have been made by the company undergoing a public offering or its agents, the complaint contains allegations concerning that company’s relationship with defendant sufficient to permit a finding that it would not have terminated plaintiffs participation but for the alleged conversations it had with defendant. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 195, 726 N.Y.S.2d 261, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fieldstone-inc-v-chapman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack