From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WIT Holding Corp. v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2001
282 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

finding that “[a]s there [was] no cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff's cause of action ... for aiding and abetting a breach of a fiduciary duty should also have been dismissed” by the lower court

Summary of this case from Solomon v. Siemens Indus., Inc.

Opinion

Submitted March 9, 2001

April 5, 2001.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendants Kenneth Klein, Paul Wasserman, First Providence Financial Group, Inc., First Providence Financial Group, LLC, and Madison Avenue Associates, LLC, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated January 24, 2000, as denied those branches of their motion which were to dismiss the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action in the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Hoffman Pollok Pickholz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Marvin G. Pickholz and William A. Rome of counsel), for appellants.

Scott M. Zucker, Lake Success, N. Y. (Andrew B. Schultz of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof denying the branches of the motion which were to dismiss the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action insofar as asserted against the appellants and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

This action arises out of an agreement by the plaintiff to purchase a stock interest in First Providence Financial Group, Inc. (hereinafter FPFG). The plaintiff allegedly paid $500,000 to FPFG and no stock was ever transferred to it. The plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the defendant Kenneth Klein, in order to benefit himself and the defendants FPFG, Paul Wasserman, and Madison Avenue Associates, LLC, fraudulently induced it to enter into the agreement.

A cause of action alleging fraud does not lie where the only fraud claim relates to a breach of contract (see, Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 107; Gordon v. De Laurentiis Corp., 141 A.D.2d 435). A present intent to deceive must be alleged and a mere misrepresentation of an intention to perform under the contract is insufficient to allege fraud (see, Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Assocs., supra, at 118). Conversely, a misrepresentation of material fact, which is collateral to the contract and serves as an inducement for the contract, is sufficient to sustain a cause of action alleging fraud (see, Deerfield Communications Corp. v. Cheesebrough-Ponds Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 954; First Bank of the Ams. v. Motor Car Funding, 257 A.D.2d 287).

The plaintiff alleges that, during discussions with the plaintiff's president, Michael Weiner, and its treasurer, Kevin Held, Klein made misrepresentations of fact to induce it to enter into an agreement with FPFG. According to the plaintiff, Klein told these representatives that he was a principal shareholder in FPFG when he still owed money to a third person for the purchase of that shareholder interest. Klein also allegedly stated that FPFG was in full compliance with regulatory requirements, when in fact, it needed an infusion of cash to meet them. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action sounding in fraud (see, First Bank of the Ams. v. Motor Car Funding, supra; RKB Enters. v. Ernst Young, 182 A.D.2d 971).

However, the Supreme Court erred in failing to dismiss the cause of action against Klein to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty. A fiduciary relationship may exist where one party reposes confidence in another and reasonably relies on the other's superior expertise or knowledge (see, Wiener v. Lazard Freres Co., 241 A.D.2d 114; Penato v. George, 52 A.D.2d 939), but an arms-length business relationship does not give rise to a fiduciary obligation (see, Wiener v. Lazard Freres Co., supra). In support of its claim that Klein breached a fiduciary duty to it, the plaintiff alleges that Klein, Weiner, and Held had socialized together on several occasions. They were also business acquaintances, and Weiner and Klein had worked together on a joint project while they both were part owners of and working for different brokerage firms. Under these circumstances, where the parties were involved in an arms-length business transaction involving the transfer of stocks, and where all were sophisticated business people, the plaintiff's cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty should have been dismissed (see, Wiener v. Lazard Freres Co., supra; L. Magarian Co. v. Timberland Co., 245 A.D.2d 69, 70). As there is no cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff's cause of action against Wasserman for aiding and abetting a breach of a fiduciary duty should also have been dismissed.

A claim alleging negligent misrepresentation must also be based on some special relationship which implies a close degree of trust between the plaintiff and the defendant (see, Pappas v. Harrow Stores, 140 A.D.2d 501). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in failing to dismiss this cause of action as well.

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

WIT Holding Corp. v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2001
282 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

finding that “[a]s there [was] no cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff's cause of action ... for aiding and abetting a breach of a fiduciary duty should also have been dismissed” by the lower court

Summary of this case from Solomon v. Siemens Indus., Inc.

affirming denial of motion to dismiss fraud claim where "plaintiff allege[d] that . . . [defendant] made misrepresentations of fact to induce it to enter into an agreement . . ."

Summary of this case from Sabilia v. Richmond

recognizing a fiduciary relationship "where one party reposes confidence in another and reasonably relies on the other's superior expertise or knowledge."

Summary of this case from In re American Business Financial Services

dismissing claim for breach of fiduciary duty where parties "were involved in an arm's-length business transaction'

Summary of this case from Womack v. Capital Stack, LLC

modifying court order to dismiss negligent misrepresentation claim on grounds that arm's length business relationship had not given rise to special relationship.

Summary of this case from EED Holdings v. Palmer Johnson Acquisition Corp.

observing that even though plaintiff and defendant had socialized on several occasions, were business acquaintances, and had worked together on a joint project while part owners of, and working for, different brokerage firms, arm's-length transaction was at issue and therefore no fiduciary relationship existed

Summary of this case from Greenberg Traurig v. Moody

observing that even though plaintiff and defendant had socialized on several occasions, were business acquaintances, and had worked together on a joint project while part owners of, and working for, different brokerage firms, arm's-length transaction was at issue and therefore no fiduciary relationship existed

Summary of this case from Greenberg Traurig, N.Y. v. Moody
Case details for

WIT Holding Corp. v. Klein

Case Details

Full title:WIT HOLDING CORP., RESPONDENT, v. KENNETH KLEIN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 5, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 66

Citing Cases

B F Prod. Dev., Inc. v. Fasst Prods. LLC

Defendants contend that plaintiff's first cause of action for fraud in the inducement is merely duplicative…

Research v. Schloemer

Both the existence of a fiduciary relationship and the breach of obligations arising from such relationship…