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.
MICHAEL MANGI & SON AGENCY, INC., appellant, v. Scott P. MANGI, et al., respondents.
In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated August 26, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the cross motion of the defendant Compensation Risk Managers, LLC, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment. With respect to the defendant Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (hereinafter CRM), the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Although the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law against the defendant Scott P. Mangi, in opposition, that defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he breached his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff or usurped corporate opportunities (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted the cross motion of CRM for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. CRM established prima facie its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 25, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)