You are here: / / BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE PLED WITH PARTICULARITY...
,

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE PLED WITH PARTICULARITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in finding the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action was sufficiently pled, noted that the cause of action must be pled with particularity pursuant to CPLR 3016 (b). Cohen & Lombardo, P.C. v Connors, 2019 NY Slip Op 00755 [169 AD3d 1399], Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

You might also like
SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).
“Negligent Ownership and Maintenance” vs “Negligent Abatement” Causes of Action in Lead-Paint Case
Emergency Doctrine Precluded Action on Behalf of Driver of Car Which Crossed Into On-Coming Lane of Traffic; ”Noseworthy” Doctrine Did Not Apply to Reduce Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Burden of Proof
THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DISMISS THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION; NEITHER MOTHER NOR THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND (WHO DID NOT APPEAR) CONSENTED TO THE REFEREE’S HEARING THE MATTER; THE POWERS OF A REFEREE ARE EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
Additional Information Constituted a “Supplemental” Bill of Particulars, Not an “Amended” Bill of Particulars—Motion In Limine Properly Denied
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED CLAIMANT TO SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
In Sex-Offense Trial, Discovery of the Victim’s Psychiatric Records Properly Denied and Cross-Examination About Psychiatric History Properly Prohibited
ONLY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS HAS THE POWER TO APPOINT CHIEF CLERKS AND DEPUTY CHIEF CLERKS OF THE SURROGATE’S COURTS (FOURTH DEPT).

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

REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM THE ROOF OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS COVERED UNDER... PLAINTIFF TRAMPLED BY TWO HORSES, STRICT LIABILITY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...