Savage Records Group, N.V. v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Savage Records Group, N.V. v. Jones

247 A.D.2d 274, 667 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 274 (Savage Records Group, N.V. v. Jones) 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

Savage Records Group, N.V. v. Jones, 247 A.D.2d 274, 667 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered July 14, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the second, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action asserted against defendants David R. Jones, also known as David Bowie, and Isolar Enterprises, Inc. (Bowie) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7) and dismissed the second cause of action against defendants BMG Music and Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc. pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree that plaintiffs’ unsupported contentions that it was fraudulently induced into executing the release and that Bowie breached a fiduciary duty are insufficient to set aside the release that plaintiff gave Bowie. Moreover, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for a breach of fiduciary duty independent of the breach of contract claim alleged in their complaint. “ ‘[U]nless the contract creates a relation, out of which relation springs a duty, independent of the mere contract obligation, though there may be a breach of contract, there is no tort, [275]*275since there is no duty to be violated’ ” (Apple Records v Capitol Records, 137 AD2d 50, 55, quoting Rich v New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 87 NY 382, 394). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered July 14, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the second, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action asserted against defendants David R. Jones, also known as David Bowie, and Isolar Enterprises, Inc. (Bowie) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7) and dismissed the second cause of action against defendants BMG Music and Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc. pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree that plaintiffs’ unsupported contentions that it was fraudulently induced into executing the release and that Bowie breached a fiduciary duty are insufficient to set aside the release that plaintiff gave Bowie. Moreover, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for a breach of fiduciary duty independent of the breach of contract claim alleged in their complaint. “ ‘[U]nless the contract creates a relation, out of which relation springs a duty, independent of the mere contract obligation, though there may be a breach of contract, there is no tort, [275]*275since there is no duty to be violated’ ” (Apple Records v Capitol Records, 137 AD2d 50, 55, quoting Rich v New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 87 NY 382, 394). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 274, 667 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savage-records-group-nv-v-jones-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack