Kopel v. Bandwidth Technology Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kopel v. Bandwidth Technology Corp.

56 A.D.2d 320, 868 N.Y.S.2d 16

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 320 (Kopel v. Bandwidth Technology 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

Kopel v. Bandwidth Technology Corp., 56 A.D.2d 320, 868 N.Y.S.2d 16 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 1, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The causes of action for breach of contract, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. These claims accrued in 1998 when defendant failed to issue stock certificates “within days,” as specified in the stock purchase agreement that plaintiff signed in June of that year (see Klein v Conte, 212 AD2d 363 [1995]), or at the latest in 1999 when the promissory note was signed.

The conversion claim also fails because such a cause of action cannot be predicated on a mere breach of contract, and no independent facts are alleged giving rise to tort liability (Fesseha v TD Waterhouse Inv. Servs., 305 AD2d 268, 269 [2003]). The cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty also fails because no such relationship was created by the 1998 agreement. Rather, it was “a simple business transaction between a potential investor and a company soliciting such investors” (Elliott v Qwest Communications Corp., 25 AD3d 897, 898 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 1, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The causes of action for breach of contract, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. These claims accrued in 1998 when defendant failed to issue stock certificates “within days,” as specified in the stock purchase agreement that plaintiff signed in June of that year (see Klein v Conte, 212 AD2d 363 [1995]), or at the latest in 1999 when the promissory note was signed.

The conversion claim also fails because such a cause of action cannot be predicated on a mere breach of contract, and no independent facts are alleged giving rise to tort liability (Fesseha v TD Waterhouse Inv. Servs., 305 AD2d 268, 269 [2003]). The cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty also fails because no such relationship was created by the 1998 agreement. Rather, it was “a simple business transaction between a potential investor and a company soliciting such investors” (Elliott v Qwest Communications Corp., 25 AD3d 897, 898 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 320, 868 N.Y.S.2d 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kopel-v-bandwidth-technology-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack