What Are The Elements Of Breach Of Fiduciary Duties in Manhattan, Manhattan?

In Manhattan, Manhattan, “In order to establish a breach of fiduciary duties, a plaintiff must prove the existence of a fiduciary relationship, 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 (2nd Dep’t 2007); see also Pokoik v. Pokoik, 982 N.Y.S.2d 67, 70, 115 A.D.3d 428 (1st Dep’t 2014).

“A fiduciary relationship exists between an agent and principal, signifying a relationship of trust and confidence whereby the agent is bound to exercise the utmost good faith and undivided loyalty toward the principal throughout the relationship.” 2 Leon C. Lazer, et al., Manhattan Pattern Jury Instructions – Civil § 3.59 (2d ed. 2006); see also Sokoloff v. Harriman Estates Development Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 409, 416, 754 N.E.2d 184, 729 N.Y.S.2d 425 (N.Y. 2001); Lamdin v. Broadway Surface Advertising Corp., 272 N.Y. 133, 138, 5 N.E.2d 66, 67 (N.Y. 1936); In re Estate of Naumoff, 301 A.D.2d 802, 803, 754 N.Y.S.2d 70 (3d Dep’t 2003).

Among the agents who, in Manhattan, Manhattan, owe fiduciary duties to a principal are an employee to the employer; a corporate officer or director to the corporation; a real estate broker to the owner of the real estate; and members of a partnership or joint venture to one another. Duane Jones Co. v. Burke, 306 N.Y. 172, 187-188, 117 N.E.2d 237 (N.Y. 1954) (employee to employer); Luskin v. Seoane, 226 A.D.2d 1144, 1145, 641 N.Y.S.2d 478 (4th Dep’t 1996) (same); Calabrese Bakeries, Inc. v. Rockland Bakery, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 1033, 1037-1038, 960 N.Y.S.2d 514 (3rd Dep’t 2013) (corporate officers and directors to the corporation); Precision Glass Tinting, Inc. v. Long, 293 A.D.2d 594, 594-595, 740 N.Y.S.2d 138 (2nd Dep’t 2002) (real estate broker to the owner of the real estate); Gibbs v. Breed, Abbott & Morgan, 271 A.D.2d 180, 184-185, 710 N.Y.S.2d 578 (1st Dep’t 2000) (members of a partnership to one another); Northern Shipping Funds I v. Icon Capital Corp., 921 F. Supp. 2d 94, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (participants in a joint venture to one another).

So, too, among the agents who, in Manhattan, Manhattan, owe fiduciary duties to a principal are an attorney to the client; a trustee to the trust beneficiary; and an escrow agent to the beneficiary. Graubard Mollen Dannett & Horowitz v. Moskovitz, 86 N.Y.2d 112, 118, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 653 N.E.2d 1179 (N.Y. 1995) (attorney to client); Keller v. Loews Corp., 69 A.D.3d 451, 451, 894 N.Y.S.2d 376 (1st Dep’t 2010) (same); In re Mankin, 88 A.D.3d 717, 718, 930 N.Y.S.2d 79 (2nd Dep’t 2010) (trustee to the trust beneficiaries); Talansky v. Schulman, 2 A.D.3d 355, 359, 770 N.Y.S.2d 48 (1st Dep’t 2003) (escrow agent to his or her beneficiary).

Again, the agents who, in Manhattan, Manhattan, owe a fiduciary responsibility to a principal include co-tenants to each other; spouses to one another; and an attorney-in-fact to his or her principal. Snyder v. Puente De Brooklyn Realty Corp., 297 A.D.2d 432, 435-436, 746 N.Y.S.2d 517 (3rd Dep’t 2002) (co-tenants to each other); Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 365 N.E.2d 849, 396 N.Y.S.2d 817, 823 (N.Y. 1977) (spouses to one another); Petracca v. Petracca, 101 A.D.3d 695, 697, 956 N.Y.S.2d 77 (2d Dep’t 2012) (same); In re Ferrara, 7 N.Y.3d 244, 254, 852 N.E.2d 138, 819 N.Y.S.2d 215 (N.Y. 2006) (attorney-in-fact to his or her principal).

The preceding list of fiduciary relationships is not exhaustive.

If your company wants to bring, or needs a lawyer to defend it in, business litigation and you are located in the Manhattan, Manhattan City area, call Attorney David S. Rich at (347) 835-5688.