Opinion
February 24, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bernard Burstein, J.).
We agree with the IAS Court that, without giving the evidence adduced in Plotch v. Plotch (Sup Ct, Bronx County, Burstein, J., index No. 8479/89; see, App. Div., 1st Dept, Sept. 21, 1993, M-4174) preclusive effect, no issue of fact exists concerning defendant Jeffrey Sheibar's status as an employee of the parties' joint venture in operating three motels, and that his first loyalty should have been to the joint venture when he learned of an opportunity to acquire another motel. (See, Bon Temps Agency v. Greenfield, 184 A.D.2d 280, 281, lv dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 759.) We also agree with the IAS Court that even if defendants were innocent of any breach of loyalty owing to plaintiff, still they were unjustly enriched by the diversion of the opportunity, and thus imposition of a constructive trust was justified (see, Simonds v. Simonds, 45 N.Y.2d 233, 242). Jurisdiction over defendant Plotch exists under CPLR 302 (a) (1) (see, Home Box Off. v. Baum, 172 A.D.2d 222). While the State has no real interest in only minor transactions (see, Money-Line, Inc. v. Cunningham, 80 A.D.2d 60, 64), here, defendant Plotch did not merely buy stock in the corporation that would hold the motel and sign a personal guaranty, but played a crucial role in facilitating defendants Sheibars' acquisition of the motel by ensuring that the couple would face no personal financial risk.
We have considered the defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.