Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
RIOM CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ivor McLEAN, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered on or about August 19, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The breach of contract claim was properly dismissed since the trial evidence failed to demonstrate a “meeting of minds” between plaintiff's sole shareholder, Joe Selas, and defendant, Ivor McLean, concerning the essential terms of an agreement for the sale of plaintiff corporation (see Stern v. Bristol Corp., 273 App.Div. 371, 77 N.Y.S.2d 324 [1948], affd. 298 N.Y. 766, 83 N.E.2d 463 [1948] ). Plaintiff's reliance on John William Costello Assocs., Inc. v. Std. Metals Corp., 99 A.D.2d 227, 472 N.Y.S.2d 325 [1984] is misplaced for at least two reasons. First, McLean's assumption of management responsibilities, at a weekly salary, was not directly referable to the alleged oral agreement to purchase the corporation. Second, albeit relatedly, McLean did not receive all the benefits of ownership of Riom by assuming management responsibilities.
Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim was also properly dismissed since the trial evidence did not show that McLean diverted corporate funds or business opportunities to derive benefit for himself at plaintiff's expense (cf. H.W. Collections, Inc. v. Kolber, 256 A.D.2d 240, 682 N.Y.S.2d 189 [1998] ). The trial evidence did not establish that McLean acted in direct competition with plaintiff or diverted corporate assets so as to warrant forfeiture of his salary on a breach of fiduciary duty theory (cf. Bon Temps Agency v. Greenfield, 184 A.D.2d 280, 584 N.Y.S.2d 824 [1992], lv. dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 759, 594 N.Y.S.2d 718, 610 N.E.2d 391 [1992] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 22, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)