From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luskin v. Seoane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 19, 1996
226 A.D.2d 1144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 19, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, Murphy, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff contends that the order on appeal should be reversed insofar as it denied his motion for partial summary judgment on liability on the sixth cause of action of the complaint, which seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty owed by defendant as an employee of plaintiff. We agree ( see, Lamdin v. Broadway Surface Adv. Corp., 272 N.Y. 133, 138; see also, Feiger v. Iral Jewelry, 41 N.Y.2d 928; Henderson v. Rep Tech, 162 A.D.2d 1028). Based upon her criminal conviction of grand larceny in the second degree, Emily Seoane (defendant) is collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of her liability ( see, Kaufman v. Eli Lilly Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449, 455). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that defendant's criminal conviction is conclusive proof of the allegations in the sixth cause of action ( see generally, Kramer v. Griffin, 156 A.D.2d 973). Therefore, all compensation and expenses that plaintiff paid to defendant during the periods of her criminal activity, disloyalty and breach of fiduciary duty are "component[s] of the profit for which [she] must account and [are] subject to forfeiture" ( Henderson v. Rep Tech, supra, at 1028).


Summaries of

Luskin v. Seoane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 19, 1996
226 A.D.2d 1144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Luskin v. Seoane

Case Details

Full title:JEROME L. LUSKIN, Appellant, v. EMILY SEOANE et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 19, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 1144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 478

Citing Cases

William Floyd v. Wright

Accordingly, Cifonelli is collaterally estopped from disputing his employment status between 1998 and 2004 (…

Compsolve, Inc. v. Neighbor

Defendant's disloyalty during this period caused plaintiff to lose sales to thirty (30) customers which were…