To the extent defendant argues that plaintiff's alleged disloyalty affected its performance, Supreme Court correctly determined that defendant was collaterally estopped from raising this argument (see Matter of Clark v. Newbauer, 148 A.D.3d 260, 266, 47 N.Y.S.3d 314 [1st Dept. 2017] ). In a prior action, this Court affirmed Supreme Court's dismissal of defendant's negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against plaintiff on the grounds that defendant failed to allege that plaintiff owed a duty to him independent of the management agreement ( Hindlin v. Prescription Songs LLC, 192 A.D.3d 480, 140 N.Y.S.3d 399 [1st Dept. 2021] ).

The court's decision was unanimously affirmed by the First Department, Appellate Division. (Hindlin v Prescription Songs LLC, et a/., 192 A.D.3d 480 [1st Dept 2021]; NYSCEF 60 [same decision].) AAM brought this action against Hindlin on November 28, 2018, seeking unpaid commissions and an award granting AAM a 50% equity interest in Hindlin's subsidiary businesses.