From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kopel v. Bandwidth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 18, 2008
56 A.D.3d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 4566.

November 18, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 1, 2007, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Laurence J. Sass, New York, for appellant.

Warner Scheuerman, New York (Jonathon D. Warner of counsel), for respondent.

Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.


The causes of action for breach of contract, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. These claims accrued in 1998 when defendant failed to issue stock certificates "within days," as specified in the stock purchase agreement that plaintiff signed in June of that year ( see Klein v Conte, 212 AD2d 363), or at the latest in 1999 when the promissory note was signed.

The conversion claim also fails because such a cause of action cannot be predicated on a mere breach of contract, and no independent facts are alleged giving rise to tort liability ( Fesseha v TD Waterhouse Inv. Servs., 305 AD2d 268, 269). The cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty also fails because no such relationship was created by the 1998 agreement. Rather, it was "a simple business transaction between a potential investor and a company soliciting such investors" ( Elliott v Qwest Communications Corp., 25 AD3d 897, 898).


Summaries of

Kopel v. Bandwidth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 18, 2008
56 A.D.3d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Kopel v. Bandwidth

Case Details

Full title:JON S. KOPEL, Appellant, v. BANDWIDTH TECHNOLOGY CORP., Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 18, 2008

Citations

56 A.D.3d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8975
868 N.Y.S.2d 16

Citing Cases

Webster v. Sherman

Importantly, it is settled law that "[a] claim of conversion cannot be predicated on a mere breach of…

SRS Capital Funds, Inc. v. Bujan

Conversion (Count Six) Plaintiffs' conversion claim is duplicative of their breach of contract claim and must…