Frydman & Co. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.

1 A.D.3d 274, 768 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12583
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 25, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 274 (Frydman & Co. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.) 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
Frydman & Co. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., 1 A.D.3d 274, 768 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered October 15, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action [275]*275for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and breach of the contractual obligation to deal fairly and in good faith, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly concluded that plaintiffs failed to raise any triable issues of fact with regard to defendants’ demonstration that the alleged contractual and tortious breaches were not the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ failure to acquire the target corporation (see Swain v Schieffelin, 134 NY 471, 473 [1892]; Rose Lee Mfg. v Chemical Bank, 186 AD2d 548, 551 [1992]). The minutes of a Board of Directors meeting and deposition testimony established a prima facie case that the corporation’s decision not to sell to plaintiffs was based on the latter’s historical inability to obtain reliable equity backing (especially regarding the unfavorable reputation of their latest source of financing) such as might jeopardize HUD approval, and the perceived lack of candor on the part of plaintiff Frydman’s principal. The Board members were apparently aware, at a crucial meeting in October 1997, of defendants’ counsel’s communication to the corporation’s counsel that there would be no “impediment” to providing financing to another named bidder, a communication that plaintiffs consider to be a breach of defendants’ obligations to them. Nevertheless, plaintiffs failed to set forth any evidence that this knowledge was a factor in—let alone the proximate cause of—the Board’s rejection of plaintiffs’ bid. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Demetriades v. Royal Abstract Deferred, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 1640 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Patrick v. Allen
355 F. Supp. 2d 704 (S.D. New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.3d 274, 768 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frydman-co-v-credit-suisse-first-boston-corp-nyappdiv-2003.