You are here: / Fiduciary Duty
, ,

HERE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD WERE ESSENTIAL TO THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIED AND THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the six-year statute of limitations for fraud controlled the breach of a fiduciary duty cause of action (which was therefore time-barred):

… [T]he six-year statute of limitations governing actions based on fraud applies (see CPLR 213[8]). “‘[W]here an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)'” … . Here, the defendants alleged that Hollander was part owner of a limited liability company that competed directly with the defendants, that Hollander failed to disclose that alleged conflict, and that Hollander used confidential information obtained from the defendants to directly compete with them. The plaintiffs allegedly denied GFR and Friedman Group, LLC, the opportunity to purchase at least four specific properties and used trade secrets to compete with GFR and Friedman Group, LLC, on at least three specific properties. The allegations of fraud are thus essential to the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim, and the six-year statute of limitations applies. South Shore Estates, Inc. v Guy Friedman Realty Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 04156, Second Dept 8-7-24

Practice Point: Where allegations of fraud are essential to a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, the six-year statute of limitations for fraud applies.

 

, , ,

DISPUTES INVOLVING THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ARE RESOLVED UNDER THE LAW OF THE PLACE OF INCORPORATION (SCOTS LAW HERE); COURTS CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FOREIGN LAW; HERE PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY UNDER SCOTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined (1) in international business disputes involving the internal affairs of foreign corporations, the law of the place of incorporation (Scots law here) applies; (2) the court can take judicial of the foreign law; and (3) plaintiffs stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under Scots law:

Consistent with our precedent, we clarify that the substantive law of a company’s place of incorporation presumptively applies to causes of action arising from its internal affairs. Moreover, because of the important interests that the internal affairs doctrine represents, we decline to create any broad exceptions to that presumption. Rather, in order to overcome this presumption and establish the applicability of New York law, a party must demonstrate both that (1) the interest of the place of incorporation is minimal—i.e., that the company has virtually no contact with the place of incorporation other than the fact of its incorporation, and (2) New York has a dominant interest in applying its own substantive law … . * * *

CPLR 4511 gives courts “substantial flexibility in determining whether to take judicial notice of foreign law and ascertaining its content” … . As the statutory language notes, a court must take judicial notice of foreign law upon request and if the court is furnished with sufficient information to do so; otherwise, a court may take judicial notice of foreign law in its discretion … . * * *

Plaintiffs’ allegations—viewed in their most favorable light and according them every possible favorable inference—are sufficient to state a claim that the director defendants at least owed limited fiduciary duties to plaintiffs. Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02841, CtApp 5-23-24

Practice Point: Disputes involving the internal affairs of foreign corporation are resolved under the law of the place of incorporation (Scots law here).

Practice Point: Courts can take judicial notice of foreign law.

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under Scots law.

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST AN ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR MALPRACTICE, FRAUD AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY; BOTH MOTHER AND SON ARE OWNERS OF A RESTAURANT; IT WAS ALLEGED THE SON’S TAKING A LARGE SALARY AND RECEIVING MILLIONS IN LOANS AGAINST THE BUSINESS WERE DOCUMENTED BY THE ACCOUNTING FIRM BUT NOT DISCLOSED TO MOTHER (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the malpractice, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action against defendant accounting firm should not have been dismissed. Both plaintiff Ellen and her son Kenneth are owners of a restaurant. The complaint alleged Kenneth was looting the restaurant by taking a large salary and talking out loans against the business without Ellen’s knowledge. It was alleged defendant accounting firm had a duty to inform Ellen of Kenneth’s financial dealings but did not. The accounting firm argued there was no duty-breach and no fraud because all of Kenneth’s financial activities were documented in the accountant’s records and in the business tax returns. The First Department simply held the complaint stated causes of action for accountant malpractice, fraud and aiding an abetting a breach of fiduciary duty:

Plaintiffs’ claims … are not that defendant was hired to discover Kenneth’s wrongdoing, but rather that information obtained by defendant during its business interactions with Kenneth and information used by defendant in order to prepare tax returns and financial statements put defendant on notice about the impropriety of Kenneth’s loans to himself such that defendant had a duty to inform plaintiffs of the questionable payments. The law is very clear that an agreement to perform unaudited services does not shield an accountant from liability because an accountant must perform all services in accordance with the standard of a reasonable accountant under similar circumstances, which includes reporting fraud that is or should be apparent … .

In addition, “[o]ne who aids and abets a breach of a fiduciary duty is liable for that breach as well, even if he or she had no independent fiduciary obligation to the allegedly injured party, if the alleged aider and abettor rendered ‘substantial assistance’ to the fiduciary in the course of effecting the alleged breaches of duty” … 1650 Broadway Assoc., Inc. v Sturm, 2024 NY Slip Op 01864, First Dept 4-4-24

Practice Point: An accounting firm has a duty to disclose fraud. Here the firm documented the potentially fraudulent financial activities of one of the owners of the restaurant but did not disclose those activities to the other owner. The allegations stated causes of action for accountant malpractice, fraud and aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty.

 

, , , , ,

IN THIS ACTION BY A PROPERTY OWNER WHO LOST THE PROPERTY TO FORECLOSURE: (1) THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKERS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION; AND (2) THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF REAL PROPERTY LAW 441-C, AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversed Supreme Court in this action against real state brokers who, plaintiff alleged, did not provide plaintiff with proper documentation for a short sale of plaintiff’s property. The short sale was not approved by the lender and plaintiff lost the property in foreclosure. The Second Department determined: (1) the judge should not have granted summary judgment to defendants on the ground plaintiff suffered no damages because that issue was not raised by defendants in the motion; (2) the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action should not have been dismissed; (3) the Real Property Law section 441-c action alleging defendants acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” should not have been dismissed; and (4) the constructive-trust cause of action should not have been dismissed:

A court is generally limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion … . * * *

“[I]t is well settled that a real estate broker is a fiduciary with a duty of loyalty and an obligation to act in the best interests of the principal” … . * * *

… [T]he causes of action pursuant to Real Property Law § 441-c(1)(a) and 19 NYCRR 175.4, alleging that they acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” in dealing with the plaintiff and the property [should not have been dismissed].. … [T]here exists a private right of action for such offenses … . Perez v Mendicino, 2024 NY Slip Op 01323, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: A judge does not have the authority to grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion papers;

Practice Point: Real estate brokers owe a fiduciary duty to their clients.

Practice Point: There exists a private right of action for a violation of Real Property Law 441-c for a real estate broker’s “untrustworthiness and incompetency.”

 

, , ,

THE ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT DURING PHOTO SHOOTS OF PLAINTIFF-MODEL WHEN SHE WAS 16 AND 17 YEARS OLD MET THE “SEXUAL CONDUCT” CRITERIA FOR THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA), THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW SECTION 50 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, modifying Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act (CVA) action, determined: (1) the conduct alleged to have been committed by defendant modeling agency (Wilhelmina) and defendant-seller of sun tan products (Cal Tan) during photo shoots of plaintiff-model when she was 16 and 17 years old met the criteria for “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the extended statute of limitations under the CVA (CPLR  214-g); (2) New York has jurisdiction over the case against Cal Tan, even though the Cal Tan photo shoot took place in Mexico (plaintiff was a New York resident); (3) the negligent supervision and breach of fiduciary causes of action against Cal Tan were properly dismissed because no allegations supported a duty to supervise; (4) the negligent supervision and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action against Wilhelmina should not have been dismissed because no arguments in opposition were interposed; and (5) the invasion of privacy causes of action (Civil Rights Law section 50) against both defendants survived the motions to dismiss. The following allegations were deemed sufficient to meet the “sexual conduct” criteria for the applicability of the CVA’s extended statute of limitations:

Plaintiff’s allegations as to Cal Tan include that she was “instructed . . . to arch her back and look at the camera ‘sexy,’ ‘like a lover,’ and think about doing ‘naughty things with your boyfriend,'” and that the photographs generated from the photoshoot “included ones in which Doe was depicted topless with her back arched in a sexually suggestive pose; looking out to the sea in a sultry manner; in which she was completely topless and ‘naked in the water’; where she is posed suggesting a willingness to engage in sexual activity; and where Doe is standing on a roof, semi- or totally naked.”

As to Wilhelmina, plaintiff alleged that at one photoshoot, “[s]he was photographed in [see-through lingerie] with another girl, also wearing see-through lingerie, together in bed. Doe and the other underage model wore coy expressions, as if together they had been doing something naughty, or sexual;” at another photoshoot, where plaintiff was unclothed, she was “instructed . . . to look ‘innocent, but sexy’ for some photos, and like a ‘bad girl’ for others”; and that at a third photoshoot she “was made to sit nude on a bed with a white sheet covering part, but not all, of her breast and buttocks.” Doe v Wilhelmina Models, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00969, First Dept 2-27-24\

Practice Point: This comprehensive opinion lays out the criteria for “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the extended statute of limitations under the Child Victims Act (CVA). Here allegations of defendants’ conduct during  photo shoots of plaintiff-model when she was 16 and 17 years old met the CVA sexual-conduct criteria.

 

, , ,

PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM BOARD MEMBERS MAY BE LIABLE FOR UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF SHAREHOLDERS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF COMMON CHARGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined individual condominium board members could be liable under the business judgment rule for unequal treatment of shareholders with respect to the assessment of common charges:

“The business judgment rule is applicable to the board of directors of cooperative and condominium corporations” … . The rule provides that “a court should defer to a [condominium] board’s determination ‘[s]o long as the board acts for the purposes of the [condominium], within the scope of its authority and in good faith'” … . Unequal treatment of shareholders is sufficient to overcome the directors’ insulation from liability under the business judgment rule … , and a director who participates in the commission of a tort committed by the board may be held individually liable … .

Here, the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants. The complaint also sufficiently alleged a cause of action sounding in fraud against the individual defendants to the extent that the plaintiff seeks damages for the overassessment of common charges … . 72 Poplar Townhouse, LLC v Board of Mgrs. of the 72 Poplar St. Condominium, 2024 NY Slip Op 00606, Second Dept 2-7-24

Practice Point: Here the complaint stated causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud against individual condominium board members for unequal treatment of shareholders in the assessment of common charges.

 

, , ,

​EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO PECUNIARY DAMAGES, WILL NOT SUPPORT AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined emotional and psychological damages, as opposed to pecuniary damages, will not support an action for breach of fiduciary duty:

… [P]laintiffs proffered no evidence showing that Atesa [plaintiff] sustained pecuniary damages, and adduced proof identifying only emotional and psychological injuries. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the allegations in the complaint that Atesa incurred financial expenses as a result of having to seek medical treatment and retain new counsel due to defendants’ alleged misconduct are insufficient to defeat summary judgment, absent any supporting evidentiary proof (see CPLR 3212[b] …). Plaintiffs’ contention that they could present such proof at trial is unavailing … . Because plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether recoverable damages were incurred, summary judgment dismissing the claim should have been granted … . Pacelli v Peter L. Cedeno & Assoc., PC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05448, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Emotional and psychological damages, as opposed to pecuniary damages, will not support an action for breach of fiduciary duty.

 

, , , ,

EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE PROPER CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE CORRECT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS DISCUSSED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined several causes of action including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of constructive trust, and breach of contract should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

“‘[W]here an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)'” … . * * * … [P]laintiffs discovered the alleged fraud in 2019 and the cause of action was timely commenced within two years. * * *

… [T]he statute of limitations on the cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust did not begin to run until 2019, when [defendant] allegedly breached his promise … . …

“[I]n order to determine the statute of limitations applicable to an action for a declaratory judgment, a court must examine the substance of the action. Where it is determined that the parties’ dispute can be, or could have been, resolved in an action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily required, that limitation period governs” … . * * *

… Supreme Court erred in concluding that the causes of action alleging fraud in the inducement and promissory estoppel are time-barred. The statute of limitations for those causes of action is six years … . …

The statute of limitations applicable to a breach of contract cause of action is six years (see CPLR 213[2]), “and begins at the time of the breach, even when no damage occurs until later, and even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury” … . Statharos v Statharos, 2023 NY Slip Op 04226, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: Here the criteria for determining the applicable statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of constructive trust, declaratory judgment, promissory estoppel, fraud in the inducement and breach of contract are discussed in some detail.

, ,

A CORPORATION (HERE A COOPERATIVE) DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS; THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS MAY OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS BUT NO ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING BY BOARD MEMBERS WERE MADE (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that a corporation (or, in this case a cooperative) does not owe a fiduciary duty to its shareholders:

… [T]he second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty as against the cooperative and the board member defendants also does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The cause of action cannot be sustained as against the cooperative “because a corporation owes no fiduciary duty to its shareholders” … . Furthermore, even assuming that the cause of action was addressed to the actions taken by the individual board member defendants, it “does not allege any individual wrongdoing by the members of the board separate and apart from their collective actions” taken in their capacity as board members … . Tahari v 860 Fifth Ave. Corp, 2023 NY Slip Op 01269, First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: A corporation does not owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Individual board members may owe a duty which would be breached by wrongdoing, not alleged here.

 

, , , , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFFS-PHYSICIANS ALLEGED THE FORMS THE EMPLOYER REQUIRED THEM TO SIGN CONSENTING TO THE DISTRIBUTION (TO THE EMPLOYER) OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE DEMUTUALIZATION OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURER WERE INVALID (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint by physicians against their employer/malpractice-insurance-policy-administrator stated causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and mutual mistake. The dispute centers on whether the physicians or the employer which paid the malpractice insurance premiums are/is entitled to the proceeds when the insurer (MLMIC) demutualized. The employer had the physicians sign forms consenting to distributing the proceeds to the employer. The physicians allege the consent forms are invalid:

Plaintiffs allege that the forms by which they authorized MLMIC to distribute their demutualization proceeds to defendant are invalid because defendant obtained them in breach of its fiduciary duty, by fraud, or due to mutual mistake. If these forms are invalid, then the demutualization proceeds belong to plaintiffs … .

Transactions between a fiduciary and beneficiary are voidable if the fiduciary acts in its own interest and does not fully disclose all material facts … . Defendant is alleged not only to have withheld the policyholder information statement from plaintiffs, but to have significantly misrepresented their contents for its own gain. These allegations, which are not conclusively refuted by the documentary evidence, are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Fraud is another basis for rescinding the consent forms … . Plaintiffs also properly allege constructive fraud, because they were owed a fiduciary duty by defendant and so were “warranted to . . . relax the care and vigilance they would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances” … . …

Mutual mistake “may not be invoked by a party to avoid the consequences of its own negligence” … . For the purposes of this motion to dismiss, however, it cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiffs were negligent … . Cordaro v AdvantageCare Physicians, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 05267, First Dept 9-27-22

Practice Point: The complaint adequately alleged the employer, which also served at the medical malpractice insurance policy administrator, breached a fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiffs-physicians by requiring them to consent to the distribution (to the employer) of the proceeds of the demutualization of the medical malpractice insurance carrier. The complaint also sufficiently alleged fraud, constructive fraud and mutual-mistake causes of action.

 

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