From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schuman v. Conforti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 1973
41 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Opinion

February 13, 1973


In an action in which a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff against defendant for a sum of money, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated August 2, 1972, which denied plaintiff's motion for an order directing the clerk of said court to add to the foot of the judgment a direction to defendant to pay the amount of the judgment. Order reversed, on the law, and motion granted, with $20 costs and disbursements; the clerk of the trial court is directed to add to the foot of the judgment a direction to defendant to pay the amount of the judgment. In our opinion, the motion should have been granted because defendant was entrusted with a specific $10,000 fund in escrow, he stood in a fiduciary relationship with plaintiff, not with a third party, and was derelict in his fiduciary duty to defer disbursement of the fund until the eventual fulfillment of the escrow agreement ( Schuman v. Conforti, 30 A.D.2d 968, affd. 26 N.Y.2d 755). Shapiro, Acting P.J., Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schuman v. Conforti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 1973
41 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)
Case details for

Schuman v. Conforti

Case Details

Full title:HERMAN SCHUMAN, Appellant, v. ALFRED J. CONFORTI, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 13, 1973

Citations

41 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Commonwealth Nat. Bank

In New York, the relationship between an escrow holder and his principal is fiduciary in nature. See: Schuman…

National Union Ins. v. Proskauer

The escrow agent must take whatever steps may be necessary to fulfill his or her duties properly. Here,…