Opinion
2002-11378, 2003-05382.
Decided April 12, 2004.
In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from terminating a contract to handle baggage at a certain airport terminal, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated September 9, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Aer Lingus for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied his cross motion for leave to amend and/or supplement the complaint and (2) an order of the same court dated March 10, 2003, which denied his motion, in effect, for leave to reargue the prior motion and cross motion.
Bailey Sherman, P.C., Douglaston, N.Y. (Edward G. Bailey of counsel), for appellant.
Holland Knight, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Roseann Bassler Dal Pra and John J. Reilly of counsel), for respondent.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman Herz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Alexander H. Schmidt of counsel), for defendants Joseph J. Carroll and Crow Aviation Services.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated March 10, 2003, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated September 9, 2002, is affirmed; it is further,
ORDERED one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant Aer Lingus demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it seeking permanent injunctive relief and imposition of a constructive trust. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact either that he did not have an adequate remedy at law ( see Roushia v. Harvey, 260 A.D.2d 687, 688; Dairy Barn Stores v. Bill's Friendly Auto Serv., 236 A.D.2d 578, 579; Byrne Compressed Air Equip. Co. v. Sperdini, 123 A.D.2d 368, 369) or that there existed a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the parties and that Aer Lingus made a promise upon which he relied ( see Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119; cf. Simonds v. Simonds, 45 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242). Thus, the motion of Aer Lingus for summary judgment was properly granted.
The plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend and/or supplement the complaint to add causes of action alleging fraud and tortious interference with fiduciary duty and to add an officer of Aer Lingus as a defendant was properly denied for lack of merit ( see Arnold v. Siegel, 296 A.D.2d 363, 364; Tatzel v. Kaplan, 292 A.D.2d 440, 441; Rice v. Penguin Putnam, 289 A.D.2d 318, 319).
RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.