VanLeeuwen v. VanLeeuwen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

VanLeeuwen v. VanLeeuwen

38 A.D.3d 879, 831 N.Y.S.2d 342

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 879 (VanLeeuwen v. VanLeeuwen) 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

VanLeeuwen v. VanLeeuwen, 38 A.D.3d 879, 831 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs John VanLeeuwen and Louis VanLeeuwen, Sr., appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant Henry E VanLeeuwen and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On the record presented, the Supreme Court’s determination that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof that the defendant Henry E VanLeeuwen breached a fiduciary duty or was unjustly enriched was warranted, and we decline to disturb it (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs John VanLeeuwen and Louis VanLeeuwen, Sr., appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant Henry E VanLeeuwen and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On the record presented, the Supreme Court’s determination that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof that the defendant Henry E VanLeeuwen breached a fiduciary duty or was unjustly enriched was warranted, and we decline to disturb it (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 879, 831 N.Y.S.2d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanleeuwen-v-vanleeuwen-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack