From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vanleeuwen v. Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 2007
38 A.D.3d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-00989.

March 27, 2007.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff's John VanLeeuwen and Louis VanLeeuwen, Sr., appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant Henry E VanLeeuwen and against them, dismissing the complaint.

McCarthy Fingar LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Robert H. Rosh of counsel), for appellants.

Benjamin Ostrer Associates, P.C., Chester, N.Y. (Cynthia Dolan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Miller, J.P., Ritter, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On the record presented, the Supreme Court's determination that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof that the defendant Henry E VanLeeuwen breached a fiduciary duty or was unjustly enriched was warranted, and we decline to disturb it ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc, v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Vanleeuwen v. Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 2007
38 A.D.3d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Vanleeuwen v. Henry

Case Details

Full title:JOHN VANLEEUWEN et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiff, v. HENRY P…

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

Date published: Mar 27, 2007

Citations

38 A.D.3d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2743
831 N.Y.S.2d 342