Roche Freedman LLP v. Cyrulnik

Issues of Fact Exist as to Whether Firm's Founding Partner Was Removed for Cause

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

ADDITIONAL CASES Jason Cyrulnik, Counterclaim-Plaintiff v. Roche Freedman LLP, et al., Counterclaim-Defendants OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Roche Freedman LLP (the “Firm”) brought this action for a declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with contract against Jason Cyrulnik (“Cyrulnik”), a founding partner of the Firm.¹ See ECF No. 31. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §1332. Cyrulnik then brought a host of statutory and common-law counterclaims against the Firm and five of its then-attorneys — Kyle Roche, Devin Freedman, Amos Friedland, Nathan Holcomb, and Edward Normand (the “Individual Counterclaim-Defendants” and, with the Firm, the “Counterclaim-Defendants”) — arising from what Cyrulnik alleges was his wrongful removal from the Firm. See ECF No. 73

103-74.² In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 28, 2023, this Court granted in part and denied in part the Individual Counterclaim-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the counterclaims. See Roche Freedman LLP v. Cyrulnik, No. 21-cv-1746, 2023 WL 2663648, at *1, *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2023)(“March 2023 Opinion”), ECF No. 374.³ Cyrulnik’s surviving counterclaims include the following: (1) dissolution pursuant to Florida Statutes §620.8801; (2) statutory buyout against the Firm pursuant to Florida Statutes §620.8701; (3) an accounting pursuant to Florida Statute §620.8403; (4) breach of contract (against the Individual Counterclaim-Defendants); (5) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against the Individual Counterclaim-Defendants); (6) breach of fiduciary duty (against the Individual Counterclaim-Defendants); (7) conversion; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) promissory estoppel (against the Individual Counterclaim-Defendants); and (10) civil conspiracy (against the Individual Counterclaim-Defendants). See March 2023 Opinion, at *1, *10; ECF No. 72

Roche Freedman LLP v. Cyrulnik

Issues of Fact Exist as to Whether Firm's Founding Partner Was Removed for Cause

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal