Asset Devs. Corp. v. Grossman

2025 NY Slip Op 04078 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · July 9, 2025 · No. Index No. 603297/20

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed an order granting defendants' cross-motions to dismiss claims against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and for summary judgment. The court held that causes of action against JAZ Grand were barred by res judicata due to a prior appellate disposition on the merits. Claims against individual defendant Breslin failed to state a cause of action for tortious interference, and claims against the law firm Weiss Zarett failed to establish a fiduciary relationship necessary for a breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Mark C. Dillon, J.P.; Paul Wooten; Barry E. Warhit; Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
July 9, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 603297/20
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County dated May 3, 2024 granting cross‑motion to dismiss and summary‑judgment dismissals against JAZ Grand, Breslin and Weiss Zarett.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Asset Developers Corp. v. Gary Grossman, et al.; JAZ Grand, LLC, et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

summary judgmentmotions to dismissres judicatacivil procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate proceduretortscontractscommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the doctrine of res judicata bars the causes of action against JAZ Grand in the second amended complaint.
  2. Whether the second amended complaint states a claim against Wilbur Breslin for tortious interference with contract or business relations.
  3. Whether the second amended complaint states a claim against Weiss Zarett for breach of fiduciary duty.

Holdings

  1. The causes of action against JAZ Grand are barred by res judicata because the prior action disposed of the same transaction on the merits.
  2. The complaint fails to state a cause of action against Breslin; dismissal affirmed.
  3. The complaint fails to establish a fiduciary relationship; summary‑judgment dismissal affirmed.

Key quotations

The causes of action insofar as asserted against JAZ Grand in the second amended complaint were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action against Breslin alleging either tortious interference with contract or tortious interference with business relations.
The elements of a cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant's misconduct.

Factual background

In 2017 Jacobson Development Group, LLC (JDG) sued Yews, Inc., Gary Grossman and others to foreclose a mortgage on property in Nassau County. The prior action resolved on the merits in favor of JAZ Grand, creating a res judicata bar. JDG later filed a second amended complaint alleging tortious interference, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty against JAZ Grand, Wilbur Breslin and Weiss Zarett.

Procedural history

The plaintiff appealed an order of the Nassau County Supreme Court that granted the defendants' cross‑motions under CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the second amended complaint as to JAZ Grand and Breslin and to grant summary judgment as to Weiss Zarett. The lower court had previously denied dismissals in the prior action and the appellate court had reversed that denial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…