Gitlin v. Chirinkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gitlin v. Chirinkin

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

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2014

Docket2013-01892

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 939 (Gitlin v. Chirinkin) 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

Gitlin v. Chirinkin, 121 A.D.3d 939, 993 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

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 *940 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.

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