You are here: / / Question of Fact About Whether Managing Member Breached Fiduciary Duty...
,

Question of Fact About Whether Managing Member Breached Fiduciary Duty Owed to Nonmanaging Member with Respect to Managing Member’s Alleged Reliance Upon an Outside Professional

The First Department determined the defendant (Gary) was not entitled to summary judgment.  Gary was the managing member of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) and was sued by a nonmanaging member. Gary argued that, under the Limited Liability Company Law (section 409), he was entitled to rely on the advice of an accountant, and that the cause of action based upon Gary’s acting in accordance with the accountant’s advice should be dismissed. The court described the fiduciary duty owed by Gary to the plaintiff and the criteria for the managing member’s reliance on an outside professional:

As the managing member of the LLCs, Gary owed plaintiff — a nonmanaging member — a fiduciary duty … . “[I]t is elemental that a fiduciary owes a duty of undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect. This is a sensitive and inflexible rule of fidelity, barring not only blatant self-dealing, but also requiring avoidance of situations in which a fiduciary’s personal interest possibly conflicts with the interest of those owed a fiduciary duty” … .Reliance on outside professionals under Limited Liability Company Law § 409(b)(2) must be in good faith (see Limited Liability Company Law § 409[a]…).  As described here, Gary does not meet his initial burden of showing that he acted in good faith and undivided loyalty to plaintiff so as to rely on Limited Liability Company Law § 409 or the business judgment rule. Pokoik v Pokoik, 2014 NY Slip Op 01502,, 1st Dept 5-6-14

 

You might also like
​ THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) AND THE ATTORNEY APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE IP WERE PROPERLY REMOVED AND DISCHARGED WITHOUT A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE GUARDIAN AND THE ATTORNEY FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE BONA FIDES OF THE IP’S MARRIAGE AND THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (FIRST DEPT).
THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER WHO HAD BEEN ABUSED BY RESPONDENT FATHER IN THE CHILD’S PRESENCE; THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER IS ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN THE COURT ORDERS THE CHILD REMOVED FROM THE HOME, NOT THE CASE HERE (FIRST DEPT).
IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL LEAVING AN ELEVATOR HE HAD JUST MODIFIED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO A FLOOR; HIS WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS ABOUT GUARDING HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIED; ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT; LABOR LAW 200, 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Defense Counsel Deemed Ineffective/Failed to Examine Evidence
THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DEMONSTRATED (1) THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE IT TO MAINTAIN A DRAIN WHICH PERIODICALLY BECAME CLOGGED CAUSING GARBAGE TO FLOAT TO THE SIDEWALK, AND (2) IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE GARBAGE ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT). ​
Warrantless Entry Into Defendant’s Home Justified by Exigent Circumstances—Juror’s Temporary Absence from the Trial (During Which the Trial Was Adjourned) and the Juror’s Inaccurate Statement He Had Discussed His Absence with the Judge Did Not Warrant a “Buford” Hearing or Disqualification

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

Insurance Company Could Not Rely On Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Action... Question of Fact Whether Driver’s Gesture to Turn Was Proximate Cause...