Berejka v. Huntington Med. Group, P.C.

Berejka, 2025 NY Slip Op 00942 (Appellate Division Second Judicial Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · February 19, 2025 · No. Index No. 610922/21

Summary

This Appellate Division, Second Department decision reviews an order denying defendants' motions to dismiss various causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and civil conspiracy. The court modified the lower court's order by granting dismissal of several claims against the defendants, primarily due to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, failure to adequately plead a fiduciary relationship, and lack of demand futility for derivative claims. The remaining claims were affirmed.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
LASALLE, P.J.; CHRISTOPHER, J.; FORD, J.; LOVE, J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
February 19, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 610922/21
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (order dated July 21, 2022) denying motions to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a); appellants seek reversal of those denials.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Huntington Medical Group, P.C., Humgro Associates, LLC, Raman Bhasin, Karen Filiberto, Salvatore Calderera, NYU Langone Health, Michael Wasileski v. John Berejka
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

breach of fiduciary dutyshareholder derivative suitscorporate governancemotions to dismisscivil procedure

Practice areas

corporate lawcivil procedurecommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the sixth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against NYU is time‑barred under the three‑year statute of limitations for monetary relief
  2. Whether the sixth cause of action against the HMG defendants is likewise time‑barred
  3. Whether the fifth, seventh, ninth, and fourteenth causes of action against Michael Wasileski should be dismissed for lack of fiduciary relationship or underlying tort
  4. Whether the derivative claim under BCL §626 should be dismissed for failure to plead demand or futility

Holdings

  1. The court granted NYU's motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action as time‑barred because the claim is subject to a three‑year limitations period that began on June 1, 2015.
  2. The court granted dismissal of the sixth cause of action against HMG, Bhasin, Filiberto, and Calderera as time‑barred for the same reasons as NYU.
  3. The court granted dismissal of those causes of action because the plaintiff failed to plead a fiduciary relationship or underlying torts.

Key quotations

'New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims' (Roumi v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 191 AD3d 911, 912).
'Generally, a cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty is governed by a six‑year statute of limitations where the relief sought is equitable in nature, or by a three‑year statute of limitations where the only relief sought is money damages' (Loeuis v Grushin, 126 AD3d 761, 764).

Factual background

In 2003 Diane Moriarty became a shareholder of Huntington Medical Group, P.C. (HMG) and a member of Humgro Associates, LLC, which owned the property where HMG operated. In April 2015 NYU Langone Health, HMG, and Humgro entered into an integration agreement. Moriarty died, and her estate sued NYU, HMG, Humgro, and several officers/directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty and related claims.

Procedural history

The plaintiff, as executor of Moriarty's estate, filed a breach‑of‑fiduciary‑duty action in Suffolk County Supreme Court. The trial court denied multiple motions to dismiss. The defendants appealed the denials to the Appellate Division, Second Department.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…