King v. George Schonberg & Co.

233 A.D.2d 242, 650 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11991
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 242 (King v. George Schonberg & Co.) 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
King v. George Schonberg & Co., 233 A.D.2d 242, 650 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered August 8, 1995, inter alia, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as against defendants Joseph Gaier, P. C., Joseph Gaier, Larry Sutton and Steven Gold, and bringing up for reviéw an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 21, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion and cross motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Since the complaint was devoid of any factual allegation [243]*243with respect to plaintiffs reliance, or the nature of her damages and how they were caused by her brother’s alleged misrepresentation, the allegations of fraud are insufficient to support the cause of action for aiding and abetting fraud. Moreover, in the absence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and her brother’s attorneys giving rise to a duty of disclosure, the silence of the attorneys did not amount to the substantial assistance that is a required element of aider or abettor liability (see, National Westminster Bank v Weksel, 124 AD2d 144, 148-149, lv denied 70 NY2d 604). Leave to replead this cause of action was properly denied for failure to submit the proposed pleading or set forth its merit.

The malpractice claim was likewise deficient since there was no attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and defendant attorneys (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974, 977). Nor, in light of the dismissal of the aiding and abetting fraud claim, did the attorneys’ conduct fall within any exception to the privity requirement (see, Green v Fischbein, Olivieri, Rozenholc & Badillo, 135 AD2d 415, 417-418). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Rotonde v. Stewart Title Ins. Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 50728(U) (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, 2025)
Churchill Financial Cayman, Ltd. v. BNP Paribas
95 A.D.3d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd.
811 F. Supp. 2d 841 (S.D. New York, 2011)
Stanfield Offshore Leveraged Assets, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
64 A.D.3d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Greenberg Traurig of New York, P.C. v. Moody
161 S.W.3d 56 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Coroles v. Sabey
2003 UT App 339 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 2003)
Calcutti v. SBU, INC.
273 F. Supp. 2d 488 (S.D. New York, 2003)
Kaufman v. Cohen
307 A.D.2d 113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Steinhardt Group, Inc. v. Citicorp
303 A.D.2d 326 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Superintendent of Insurance v. Spira
289 A.D.2d 173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
HT Capital Advisors, L. L. C. v. Optical Resources Group, Inc.
276 A.D.2d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Richied v. D.H. Blair & Co.
272 A.D.2d 170 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Roemer & Featherstonhaugh, P. C. v. Featherstonhaugh
267 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Glidden Co. v. Jandernoa
5 F. Supp. 2d 541 (W.D. Michigan, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 A.D.2d 242, 650 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-george-schonberg-co-nyappdiv-1996.