Gitlin v. Chirinkin

121 A.D.3d 939, 993 N.Y.S.2d 914

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered December 19, 2012, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint as barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint as barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto (see Kirschner v KPMG LLP, 15 NY3d 446, 464 [2010]; Ta Chun Wang v Chun Wong, 163 AD2d 300, 302 [1990]; Janke v Janke, 47 AD2d 445, 449 [1975], affd 39 NY2d 786 [1976]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Eng, EJ., Dillon, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.