You are here: / / No Fiduciary Duty Re: Purchase of One Shareholder’s Stock by Another i...
,

No Fiduciary Duty Re: Purchase of One Shareholder’s Stock by Another in a Close Corporation

In affirming Supreme Court’s dismissal of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based on one shareholder’s purchase of another shareholder’s stock in a close corporation, the Second Department noted that the status of an officer, director or shareholder of a close corporation does not, without more, create a fiduciary relationship:

“The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct” … . “A fiduciary relationship exists between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for . . . the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relation” …

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, [the purchaser’s] status as an officer, director, or shareholder of a close corporation “does not, by itself, create a fiduciary relationship as to his individual purchase of [another shareholder’s] stock” … .  Varveris v Zacharakos, 2013 NY Slip Op 07028, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

You might also like
AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES. 
NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.
“Intrinsic” Versus “Extrinsic” Fraud as the Basis of a Motion to Open a Default Judgment/Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RETURN OF ENGAGEMENT RING AFTER THE ENGAGEMENT AND MARRIAGE WERE CALLED OFF (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER ALLEGED CHANGES IN HIS WORK SCHEDULE ALLOWED MORE TIME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS WITH THE CHILD; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED ON FATHER’S MODIFICATION PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIR’S DETERMINATION WAS AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW WHICH RESULTED IN A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, DETERMINATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED.
INSUFFICIENT PROOF DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 2ND DEPT.
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

People Could Not Appeal Judge’s Vacation of Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing... No Justification for Vacation of Arbitration Award—Strict Standard Ap...