Reiff v. Shifrel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reiff v. Shifrel

217 A.D.2d 691, 630 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210

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

DecidedJuly 31, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.D.2d 691 (Reiff v. Shifrel) 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

Reiff v. Shifrel, 217 A.D.2d 691, 630 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered November 5, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendants Michael J. Shifrel and 248-06 R.B. Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion of the defendants Shifrel and 248-06 R.B. Corp. and dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the partnership agreement precludes the plaintiff from sharing in the fees received by Michael J. Shifrel. We therefore conclude that issues of fact exist as to whether Shifrel breached his fidu[692]*692ciary duty to the plaintiff (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; St. James Plaza v Notey, 95 AD2d 804). Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered November 5, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendants Michael J. Shifrel and 248-06 R.B. Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion of the defendants Shifrel and 248-06 R.B. Corp. and dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the partnership agreement precludes the plaintiff from sharing in the fees received by Michael J. Shifrel. We therefore conclude that issues of fact exist as to whether Shifrel breached his fidu[692]*692ciary duty to the plaintiff (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; St. James Plaza v Notey, 95 AD2d 804). Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 691, 630 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reiff-v-shifrel-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack