Many business relationships are so close that they create certain (fiduciary) obligations among the parties involved. A fiduciary duty is one of the highest standards of care in the law. Fiduciary duty requires the fiduciary to at all time act loyally for the benefit of the one who trusts. A fiduciary must never put his/her personal interest first as the fiduciary has undertaken to act for another in situations requiring the utmost trust and confidence. The fiduciary must conduct himself at a higher level than a normal person would in the situation and may not profit from the relationship without knowledge and consent.
The most common breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits involve disputes between partners or shareholders in a business. Other instances of breach of fiduciary claims include directors to shareholders, agents to principals, and even accountants and lawyers to clients. Very often these claims are accompanied by fraud claims as well.
In New York the party claiming breach of fiduciary duty must show that a fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiff and defendant, that defendant breached that duty and that damages exist as a result of that breach.
Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP recent New York Breach of Fiduciary Duty news:
Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP represents Plaintiffs in this action. They allege that Plaintiff’s were defrauded by their attorneys during the sale and subsequent flip of a property.
Plaintiffs retained attorneys Pollak & Slepian to represent them as sellers of real property, selling the property to Tatiana Bell Corp. They alleged Pollak was an officer of Tatiana and sold the property on the same day as plaintiffs’ closing to O’Sullivan, who was represented by Peknic. Plaintiffs argued defendants breached their fiduciary duty and perpetrated a fraud by failing to tell them of the second sale, and depriving them of the nearly $200,000 difference in price.
The court stated, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, and determining only if they fit within any cognizable legal theory, it found plaintiffs sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. It noted the allegation of a failure to disclose material facts regarding the flip sale was pleaded with sufficient detail as to clearly inform defendants regarding the allegedly fraudulent real estate transactions complained of, including the role of moving defendants.
Thus, O’Sullivan’s and Peknic’s motion to dismiss was denied.