Northern Stamping, Inc. v. Monomoy Capital Partners, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Northern Stamping, Inc. v. Monomoy Capital Partners, L.P.

107 A.D.3d 427, 967 N.Y.S.2d 326

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 6, 2013·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered June 6, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with economic advantage, and negligent misrepresentation, and denied the motion as to the cause of action for fraud/fraudulent inducement, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the cause of action for fraud/ fraudulent inducement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[428] Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action is unsupported by any facts from which the formation of a joint venture or partnership could be inferred (see Matter of Steinbeck v Gerosa, 4 NY2d 302, 317 [1958]). Moreover, it is duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action (see Nineteen Eighty-Nine, LLC v Icahn, 96 AD3d 603, 604 [1st Dept 2012]).

Apart from the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, which fail to state a cause of action, the tortious interference cause of action is unsupported by any facts that would establish an independent tort (see Amaranth LLC v J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 71 AD3d 40, 47 [1st Dept 2009], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 14 NY3d 736 [2010]). The negligent misrepresentation cause of action also relied on an alleged fiduciary or confidential relationship (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 87 AD3d 287, 296 [1st Dept 2011]).

- The complaint fails to allege factual details that would establish specific damages resulting from defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and thus, the fraud cause of action should be dismissed (see id.).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered June 6, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with economic advantage, and negligent misrepresentation, and denied the motion as to the cause of action for fraud/fraudulent inducement, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the cause of action for fraud/ fraudulent inducement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[428] Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action is unsupported by any facts from which the formation of a joint venture or partnership could be inferred (see Matter of Steinbeck v Gerosa, 4 NY2d 302, 317 [1958]). Moreover, it is duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action (see Nineteen Eighty-Nine, LLC v Icahn, 96 AD3d 603, 604 [1st Dept 2012]).

Apart from the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, which fail to state a cause of action, the tortious interference cause of action is unsupported by any facts that would establish an independent tort (see Amaranth LLC v J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 71 AD3d 40, 47 [1st Dept 2009], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 14 NY3d 736 [2010]). The negligent misrepresentation cause of action also relied on an alleged fiduciary or confidential relationship (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 87 AD3d 287, 296 [1st Dept 2011]).

- The complaint fails to allege factual details that would establish specific damages resulting from defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and thus, the fraud cause of action should be dismissed (see id.).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Northern Stamping, Inc. v. Monomoy Capital Partners, L.P., 107 A.D.3d 427, 967 N.Y.S.2d 326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

107 A.D.3d 427 (Northern Stamping, Inc. v. Monomoy Capital Partners, L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related