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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 14, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] dant (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] dant (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.

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

284 A.D.2d 195 (Fieldstone, Inc. v. Chapman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related