Lobel v. Hakami

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lobel v. Hakami

134 A.D.3d 410, 19 N.Y.S.3d 724

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2015

Docket16249 652984/11

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 410 (Lobel v. Hakami) 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

Lobel v. Hakami, 134 A.D.3d 410, 19 N.Y.S.3d 724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered December 9, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly granted defendants summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action, as the evidence does not support plaintiff’s claim of an oral partnership agreement between him and defendant Hakami (see Moses v Savedoff, 96 AD3d 466, 470 [1st Dept 2012]). In the absence of evidence showing a partnership relationship, the court correctly granted defendants summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim (see Langer v Dadabhoy, 44 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 712 [2008]).

*411 We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered December 9, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly granted defendants summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action, as the evidence does not support plaintiff’s claim of an oral partnership agreement between him and defendant Hakami (see Moses v Savedoff, 96 AD3d 466, 470 [1st Dept 2012]). In the absence of evidence showing a partnership relationship, the court correctly granted defendants summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim (see Langer v Dadabhoy, 44 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 712 [2008]).

*411 We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 410, 19 N.Y.S.3d 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lobel-v-hakami-nyappdiv-2015.