NORTHERN STAMPING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. MONOMOY CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. Defendants-Respondents-ap

10281. NORTHERN STAMPING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. MONOMOY CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. Defendants-Respondents-ap — Trachtenberg Rodes & Friedberg, LLP, New York (Barry Friedberg of counsel), for appellant-res — Crowell & Moring LLP, New York (John N. Thomas of counsel), for respondents-ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered June 6, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with economic advantage, and negligent misrepresentation, and denied the motion as to the cause of action for fraud/fraudulent inducement, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the cause of action for fraud/fraudulent inducement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10281. NORTHERN STAMPING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. MONOMOY CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. Defendants-Respondents-ap — Trachtenberg Rodes & Friedberg, LLP, New York (Barry Friedberg of counsel), for appellant-res — Crowell & Moring LLP, New York (John N. Thomas of counsel), for respondents-ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered June 6, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with economic advantage, and negligent misrepresentation, and denied the motion as to the cause of action for fraud/fraudulent inducement, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the cause of action for fraud/fraudulent inducement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action is unsupported by any facts from which the formation of a joint venture or partnership could be inferred (see Matter of Steinbeck v. Gerosa, 4 NY2d 302, 317 [1958]). Moreover, it is duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action (see Nineteen Eighty-Nine, LLC v. Icahn, 96 AD3d 603, 604 [1st Dept 2012]).

NORTHERN STAMPING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. MONOMOY CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. Defendants-Respondents-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal