From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Breakwaters Townhomes Ass'n v. Breakwaters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Summary

rejecting argument that securities transactions do not come within ambit of sections 349 and 350

Summary of this case from M&T Bank Corp. v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n

Opinion

September 30, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court should have granted defendant Albert V. Randaccio summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action, except to the extent that it seeks recovery for common-law fraud, inasmuch as plaintiffs essentially seek recovery based on violations of the Martin Act (General Business Law art 23-A). It is well established that there is no implied private cause of action for violation of the antifraud provisions of that statute (see, CPC Intl. v. McKesson Corp., 70 N.Y.2d 268; see also, Vermeer Owners v Guterman, 78 N.Y.2d 1114; Rego Park Gardens Owners v. Rego Park Gardens Assocs., 191 A.D.2d 621, 622).


Randaccio contends that the seventh cause of action, which alleges violations of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, should be dismissed because securities transactions do not come within the ambit of those statutory provisions. That contention lacks merit (see, Board of Managers v. Bayberry Greens Assocs., 174 A.D.2d 595, 596).

Lastly, we conclude that the court properly denied plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that Randaccio signed the certification required under the Martin Act in his individual capacity. Regardless of whether Randaccio signed the certificate in his individual or corporate capacity, he may be liable personally as an officer of the corporation if it is established that he personally participated in, profited from, or had knowledge of the corporation's alleged wrongful conduct (see, Halford v. First Jersey Sec., 182 A.D.2d 1003, 1004; Board of Managers v. Fairways at N. Hills, 150 A.D.2d 32, 39; Prudential-Bache Metal Co. v. Binder, 121 A.D.2d 923, 926).


Summaries of

Breakwaters Townhomes Ass'n v. Breakwaters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

rejecting argument that securities transactions do not come within ambit of sections 349 and 350

Summary of this case from M&T Bank Corp. v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n

rejecting argument that securities transactions do not come within ambit of sections 349 and 350

Summary of this case from M&T Bank Corp. v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n
Case details for

Breakwaters Townhomes Ass'n v. Breakwaters

Case Details

Full title:BREAKWATERS TOWNHOMES ASSOCIATION OF BUFFALO, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 30, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 829

Citing Cases

Bd. of Managers of the Park Slope Views Condo. v. Park Slope Views, LLC

Indeed, the Attorney General bears “sole responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Martin Act” and…

Whitehall Tenants Corp. v. Estate of Olnick

Plaintiff cooperative's attempt to sue representatively on behalf of its resident shareholders, claiming that…