Guilderland Reinsurance Co. v. Gold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guilderland Reinsurance Co. v. Gold

227 A.D.2d 759, 642 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4987

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

DecidedMay 9, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 759 (Guilderland Reinsurance Co. v. Gold) 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

Guilderland Reinsurance Co. v. Gold, 227 A.D.2d 759, 642 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered May 30, 1995 in Albany County, which denied third-party defendants’ motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.

Plaintiff’s complaint seeks purely economic loss for defendant’s breach of contract in refusing to close on a real estate transaction. Third-party defendants moved to dismiss the third-[760]*760party complaint on the ground that no claim for contribution lies in these circumstances (see, e.g., Board of Educ. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 NY2d 21). The third-party complaint, however, does not assert a claim for contribution. Rather, it alleges the existence of a contractual and fiduciary relationship between defendant and third-party defendants, and further alleges that third-party defendants used confidential information from the fiduciary relationship to induce defendant to enter into the contract with plaintiff, in derogation of defendant’s best interests and in contravention of third-party defendants’ fiduciary duty to defendant.

In light of the scope of the inquiry on a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss (see, Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633), Supreme Court did not err in denying third-party defendants’ motion. "[A] licensed real estate broker is a fiduciary for his client, and must exercise the utmost good faith and loyalty in his performance” (Weissman v Mertz, 128 AD2d 609, 610, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 1036, lv denied 70 NY2d 608). Accepting the allegations of the third-party complaint as true for the purposes of this motion addressed only to the sufficiency of the pleading, defendant has stated a claim based upon the alleged existence of a fiduciary relationship between defendant and third-party defendants and upon third-party defendants’ alleged breach of the fiduciary duty owed to defendant as a result of that relationship.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Casey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered May 30, 1995 in Albany County, which denied third-party defendants’ motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.

Plaintiff’s complaint seeks purely economic loss for defendant’s breach of contract in refusing to close on a real estate transaction. Third-party defendants moved to dismiss the third-[760]*760party complaint on the ground that no claim for contribution lies in these circumstances (see, e.g., Board of Educ. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 NY2d 21). The third-party complaint, however, does not assert a claim for contribution. Rather, it alleges the existence of a contractual and fiduciary relationship between defendant and third-party defendants, and further alleges that third-party defendants used confidential information from the fiduciary relationship to induce defendant to enter into the contract with plaintiff, in derogation of defendant’s best interests and in contravention of third-party defendants’ fiduciary duty to defendant.

In light of the scope of the inquiry on a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss (see, Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633), Supreme Court did not err in denying third-party defendants’ motion. "[A] licensed real estate broker is a fiduciary for his client, and must exercise the utmost good faith and loyalty in his performance” (Weissman v Mertz, 128 AD2d 609, 610, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 1036, lv denied 70 NY2d 608). Accepting the allegations of the third-party complaint as true for the purposes of this motion addressed only to the sufficiency of the pleading, defendant has stated a claim based upon the alleged existence of a fiduciary relationship between defendant and third-party defendants and upon third-party defendants’ alleged breach of the fiduciary duty owed to defendant as a result of that relationship.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 759, 642 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guilderland-reinsurance-co-v-gold-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack