Kurtzman v. Bergstol
Decision Date | 01 May 2007 |
Docket Number | 2005-07186.,2005-07503. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 03886,835 N.Y.S.2d 644,40 A.D.3d 588 |
Parties | DEBORAH SHAPIRO KURTZMAN, Respondent-Appellant, v. ERIC BERGSTOL et al., Defendant, and MILTON SHAPIRO, Appellant-Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issues of whether there was conversion and misappropriation of corporate assets by the defendant Milton Shapiro (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Fiorenti v Central Emergency Physicians, 305 AD2d 453, 454-455 [2003]). In opposition, Shapiro failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the seventh and eighth causes of action sounding in conversion and misappropriation of corporate assets insofar as asserted against Shapiro, and properly entered judgment in the plaintiff's favor on those causes of action.
However, the Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the third and thirteenth causes of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty insofar as asserted against Shapiro. The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether Shapiro breached his fiduciary duty to her (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra; Alvarez v...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Penberg v. Healthbridge Mgmt.
...... existence of a fiduciary relationship, misconduct by the defendant, and damages that were directly caused by the defendants misconduct.” Kurtzman v. Bergstol, 40 A.D.3d 588, 590, 835 N.Y.S.2d 644, 646 (2d Dep't 2007) (internal citations omitted). 2) Analysis HealthBridge ......
-
DirecTV Latin America, LLC v. PARK 610, LLC
...2006 WL 1229689, at *3 (Del.Super.Ct. Apr. 28, 2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Kurtzman v. Bergstol, 40 A.D.3d 588, 590, 835 N.Y.S.2d 644 (2d Dep't 2007) ("plaintiff must prove the existence of a fiduciary relationship, misconduct by the defendant, and damages that w......
-
Amusement Indus. Inc. v. Stern
...misconduct by the defendant, and damages that were directly caused by the defendant's misconduct.” Kurtzman v. Bergstol, 40 A.D.3d 588, 590, 835 N.Y.S.2d 644 (2d Dep't 2007) (citation omitted). Here, Amusement claims that LTA and Frenkel breached a fiduciary duty which arose because LTA and......
-
Blink v. Johnson
...induced or participated in the breach; and (c) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach (Kurtzman v Bergstol, 40 A.D.3d 588, 590 [2d Dept 2007]; Gupta v Rubin, 2001 WL 59237 at * 7 [SD NY 2001]). The vast majority of this claim revolves around Johnson's alleged breaches......