From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arnett v. Charles Morgan Sec. Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 12, 2016
135 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

16635 653445/13

01-12-2016

Jan ARNETT, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CHARLES MORGAN SECURITIES INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC, New York (Dan Brecher of counsel), for appellant. Moritt, Hock & Hamroff LLP, New York (Bruce A. Schoenberg of counsel), for respondents.


Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC, New York (Dan Brecher of counsel), for appellant.

Moritt, Hock & Hamroff LLP, New York (Bruce A. Schoenberg of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered September 10, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants, as controlling shareholders of nonparty the Enlightened Gourmet, Inc. (EGI), breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff, a minority shareholder and creditor of EGI. We affirm the dismissal of the claim, as plaintiff failed to show that defendants owed him a fiduciary duty. Plaintiff does not dispute defendants' contention that Nevada, where EGI was incorporated, does not recognize a fiduciary duty owed to a corporation's creditors by majority or controlling shareholders. To the extent he relies on RSL Communications PLC v. Bildirici, 649 F.Supp.2d 184 (S.D.N.Y.2009), affd. 412 Fed.Appx. 337 (2d Cir.2011), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 97, 181 L.Ed.2d 25 (2011) in support of his argument that defendants owe him a fiduciary duty under New York law, RSL and the cases cited therein state only that “officers and directors” of insolvent corporations owe creditors a fiduciary duty (649 F.Supp.2d at 202 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that defendants were officers or directors of EGI. Further, his allegations that defendants controlled EGI are conclusory.

We decline to grant plaintiff leave to amend to assert a claim for fraud. Plaintiff never requested that relief before the motion court and, in any event, he fails to state a claim for fraud (see Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 553, 559, 883 N.Y.S.2d 147, 910 N.E.2d 976 2009 ).

We have considered and rejected plaintiff's remaining arguments.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Arnett v. Charles Morgan Sec. Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 12, 2016
135 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Arnett v. Charles Morgan Sec. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Jan ARNETT, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CHARLES MORGAN SECURITIES INC., et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 12, 2016

Citations

135 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
22 N.Y.S.3d 837
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 130