Coyle v Siegfried

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Coyle v Siegfried 2012 NY Slip Op 31814(U) June 28, 2012 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 2010-22328 Judge: Jeffrey Arlen Spinner Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART XXI - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 1)RL;Sl~h : I HON. JEFFERY ARLEN SPINNER Justice of the Supreme Court - against - INDEX N O : PAUL D SIEGFRIED, individually; PAUL I) SIEGFRIED as Guardian of the Person and Property of Lawrence P Fraiberg; LAWRENCE L FLYNN, indi\Jidually; LAWRENCE L FLYNN, as EniployeeiAgent for Gottesman, Wolgel. Malamy, Flynn & Weinberg, PC; and GOTTESMAN, WOLGEL, MALAMY, FLYNN & WEINBERG, Defendants. 2010-22328 h4OI-lON SEQ NO ORIG MO I ION DATE 002 - CASEDISP 09i24 10 hilOTlON SEQ. NO. O R I G . MOTION DATE: 003 - CASEDISP 09/24/10 FINAL S U B M I T DATE. 03/35/12 L pon the following papers numbered 1- XXXX read on tbese Motions: Ilefendants SIEGFRIEDs Motion [002] (Papers 1-2); 0 Plaintiffs Opposition (Papers 3-4); 0 Defendants SIEGFRIEDs Reply (Papers 5-6); Dell-ndants FLYNN & LAW FIRMs Motion C O1 (P2,pers 7-8); O3 Plaintiff s Opposition (Paper 9); Ilefendants FLYNN & LAW FIRMs Reply (Papers 10-12); Plaintiffs Further Opposition (Paper 13); it IS O R l l L I I I ~ Dthat the Motion 10021 of Defendants PAU ,[ D SIE Gl~RIEDas Guardian of tlic Person m d Property of 1,awrence 1 Fraiberg and PAUL D SIEGI-RICII iiidi\ i d i i c i l l ) (collccti\ ely Ilefendants SILGlXIED). pursuant to CPI I< 32 1 1 dismis\ing the complaint as ,tsseited ,ig,iinst them I S hereby granted to the extent set forth herein belon, .ind i t is I Lirther Page 1 of 5 [* 2] upon one !ear statute ot' limitations; aiid (ik ) CPLR 321 1 ( a ) (3). for lack of capacit!iistandin~ to \tli' Plaintiff alleges that after he made a demand for payment of outstanding \\ages to his forii-ier c 111p 1o! e I'' s 1e ga 1 g IIard i an, I 1e fend ant S 1E G F R1kI). a Guard Ian. S I E Cr F K I ED d i str ibu ted , \$ ithotit authoiuation, a report containing false statements about Plaintiff to si\ interested partjes p x t 1c i pat I 11 in t he g i i ard i ansh i p proceeding . g Plaintifl' further alleges that in order to support his claim f,,r unpaid M ages, he pro\Jided Guardian SIEGTRIED's attorney, Defendant FLYNN, &it11 his income tax returns bearing his unredacted social sccurit), niuiiber. Although two months later Plaintifl' notifizd Flynn that these docuiiients ere pri\ileged and provided for settlement purposes o n l y . Flynn bubsequently served tlicni unredactd and \%itlioutauthorization on the six interested parties as part of motion papers. Plaintiff asserts causes of action sounding in breach of contrac.., breach of fiduciary duty of confidentiality, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supc -vision aiid retention. .As to the Ilefendant SIEGFRIED. as Guardian,, Plaintiff asserts the follouing causes of action: breach o f fiduciaq duty of confidentiality, breach of coiltract. negligence. intentional infliction ol'eiiiotional distress. negligent intentional infliction of emotion a 1 I-lstress. 1' '4s t o Defendant I;I.YNN. individually. Plaintiff asserts tke following causes of action: breach of confident i a 1it 1 ne g1i geiice in t eiit i onal in tl i ct i o n of e niot i o nal d i si res s . and neg 1i ge n t i n tc 11ioiial t i 111 i c t i o n o 1' eniot i onal d ist r e s . 1 ~ ~ As to I>cfendant FLYNN. as employee of Defendant I A N ' FIRM. Plaintiff asserts the lbllo\+?ng c ;I 11 scs o 1' actio11: bre ac 1 o f co i i ti dent i a 1 it y. neg l i genc 2. intention a I in I i c t i o n o I' c nio t i ona 1 1 1 d i s t rcss . and iicg I i geii t i lit ent iona I i n f 1ic Li 011 u f ciiio t i o na I cI i s 1ress . 1kfi.ndant LAW s 11 per\,i si o n and ret eiit i o n i+'iiiall!,. as to FIRM. Plaintiff' asserts tlhc cause of' action li,r negligent hiring. , l'poii ;I motion to dismiss Ibr failurc to state a cause ofaclion iindu CI)I.R -321 1 (a) (7). the court iiitist deter~iiiiie \\hetlier from the four corners of the pleading "factual alleptions are di \\ hich taken together muiiili.st ani. cause of action cognizable at la A ' ' (Morrrrl I ' illorrrd. 27 Al1.3d 026 1 internal qiiotation marks omitted]). Further. the pleadin:: is to be af'li,rclcd ;I liberal construction. the Iitcts alleged i n the complaint acceptcd ;IS true. and the plaintil'f accorded t h e bciicfit 01' c\ c q possible fii\,orable infkrence (see Lroii I' ,Wrrrtr'nc)Z, 8-1 N 1'3cl 83). I Io\\e\ cr. "allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as \vel1 .IS f'actual claims l l a t l ~contradictcd b j ciocumcntor!~ c\-idence are not entitled to any such coiisiclcration" (Crrrbrr I' Borrrd cf 7'rrrstw.s of'Strrtc IJiriv o f N Y , 38AD3d 833. quoting Mncrs 1' Cornell CJiriir. 04 N Y2d 87). Page 2 of 5 [* 3] 1 ti1 tlicrmore. ;I motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLII 3 2 1 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ma! be granted onl! i l tlie ctocuiiientarj evidence submitted b the ino\ ing party utter11 refutes the factual allegation4 ! of the complaint aiid conclusitel1 establishes a defense to the claims a s a matter of la\\ (st.?: Godien 11 l.lrrtrrrrl Lijk IIIS o N I : 98 NY2d 3 14: Crcm[rlr[ Coirtloniiniirni III A W I I ' Co f Prrloniiiio. 78 L4Did906, Fontriiieftci v Johii Doe 1. 73 A[)3d 78) 'I lie S e i cnth and Eight C'au of Action. a s asserted agninst the Siegfried Iklkndants. allege breach 01. contract. The elements of a cause of' action to I.CCO\ er clamages for bl-each o f contract arc: ( 1 ) existence 01' a contact; (2) plaintiff's performance under tlie contract: ( 3 ) defendant's breach of the contract; and (4) resulting daiiiages (see JP ,l/lorgnn Clime v JH Elcc of NY, Iinc. 69 AD3d 802: Firria v Fiwia, 1 16 AD2d 693). Vie\\ ing the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and affordin: l'laiiitif'f'thc benefit of ever) possible fiworable inference, the complaint docs not allegc. an! facts establishing the existence of an enlbrccable contract between Plaintiff and tlie Siegfried Defendants. Accordingly. the seventh aiid eight ciiiise of action must be dismissed. I he -1 hirtecntli, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Causes 01' Action. alleging intentioiial infliction of emotional distress, are asserted against Defendants SIEGFRIED. Defendant 1:LYhlN individuall!r. and Defendant FLYNN as employee of Defendant L A W FIRM. In order to properly plead a cause of action for intentioiial infliction of emotional distress. tlic plainti 11' must allege more than conduct that causes inconvenience or embarrassment, even if jiicli conduct continues for a protracted period of'time (see: Associcites Firsf Cqiitrd v Crcibill. 3 1 i \ D i d 1 186). Indeed, the plaintiff must demonstrate that tlie clefendant's "'condiict [%as]so oiitragcous in character, and so extreme in degree. as to go bzyond all possible bounds of ilecencqr ... and [was] utterly intolerable in a civili7ed community"' ( M w p l i j ~ .4rizericriu Ifoirtc v f'rotls Corp. 5 8 NY2d 293). .\ppl! ing these principles to the facts alleged in the complaint, tlic Court find4 that Plaintiff failed to plead conduct sufficient to establish a prrimi juc*ic claim of' intentional infliction of' emc~ttoncil di4trcjs. and therefore the '1 hirteentli. lourteentli, iftwnth ,itid Si\teentli C B L I ~ C Sof 'IC t 1o 11 ni 11 5 t be d 1 5 nit 4 \ed 1 4 ' 1 . 1 1 ~ Ninth. '1 entli. I<lc\,entliand l'\veItih causes ol' action allege negligence, and arc asserted against I I e ti.nclnn t s S 1EG 1 KI ED De 12nd an t F' I ,YN N i ntl i L r i d ua I I 1.. ;in d De f 2 nil ;i t i t I I L' N N as : cmplo! cc 01' LIefndant I.AW FIRM. I' ~ Page 3 of 5 ~ [* 4] Ihsent fi-aid. collusion. nialicioiis acts. or other special 8:ircumst,inccs. iiii attornc!' is not liable t o rhird parties not in priiity or near-privit!. for liar111 caused by prof'essional neyligcnce" (citations omitted) Breen v Laru OJf o Brrree A Burke? I T . 2008 N Y Slip Op 5640 (NY!lpp f l ) i \ 2J 1)ep't 2008). ". 'The complaint alleges that Defendant ILYNN \vas re-.ained b:y Defendant SIEGFRIED. as Guardian, to handlc Plaintiff's claim for unpaid \zagcs, but it is dei.oici of an>' allegations oi' pri\.it!, 01' iiear-pri\4\: between Plaintiff and an!. of' the I1ei'end:ints. 'l'lie C'ourt notes that Plaintiff: an attorney registered to practice law in the State of N e u York, certainly appreciated better tlim an ni'erage person his relationship with Defendants. l'h LIS, the Xintli, 'l'entli. Eleiw-ith and 'l'i\ elfth C'auses of Action must be dismissed. I lie I irit. Second, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Act on, as asserted against Defeiidants SIEGI. I W D , Defendant FLYNN individually, and Ilefendant FLYNN as employee of Defendant L A W FIRM. allege breach o f fiduciary duty of confidentialit). . The elements of a caiise of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are: ( 1 ) csistcnce of a fiduciary relationship: (2) misconduct by the defenrlant; and (3) damages directly caused b> the defendant's misconduct (See Ir'urtznztitt 11 Bqgstol, 40 AD3d 588). In deciding whether there is a fiduciary relationship. the murt will look to see "wlietlier a party reposed conlidence i n another and reasonably relied on the other's superior expertise or linoulecige" (Wiener v Lazavtl Fveres & Co, 241 AD2d 1 14). i nc 1ude s c o iic1usor y stat e men t s that 11e tend ants b re ac 11 c d t he i r f d LIC1ar j d LIt j i 01' confidential it^ to Plaintiff: but it fails to allege an> facts that \ ~ o u l c l gi\ e iisc to siicli <I fiduci,ii! relationiliip bctueen Plaintiff and any 01' the I1clndaiits On a motion to clisiiiiv ci compl,iiiit pursuant CPLR 32 1 1 (a)(7). "bare legal concliisions :ire not pcssunied to hc true" ( K i / / ~ r ~ ~ 11 iWinged Foot GolJ Clnb, I m . 35 AII3d 847) 1 hus. the complaint does not state c~ t ifh c,iiiw o f action t o recm cr daiiiagec, for breach of fiduciai 3 duty of confidentialit> Accoldingl>. thc I ii st. Second. 1 hird and Fourth Causes of Action miis1 be dismissed. 13e re. t 1 e c o nip 1ai n t 1 Ilie 1'\\.e n t y - i rs t C' au s e of ' Action fo r ne g 1i gc n t 1 iring . s 11 1 1m-vi s ion and r et en t i o i i . a s ;isse r t cd I ICIknd ;in t I ,A W 1- I RM must be d ism i s sed. sin c c i t s co 11 n lied \,i ah i 1i t >. i s cl c p c nclct n t ti 11 p (1 11 t h c ;I I re ad !, d i s m is s ed c 1 ci i m s . ' rs' iiga i i i s t I Iic ('oiirt notes that it i s not ;i\\are 01' an!. proceedings coiiinienccd 13) l ' l a i n t i l ~ lto scal thc coiirt ~ rccoids containing his allcgedlj unredactcd social securit:, niinibc . o r to periii;inciitl~~ espungc it li.oni court filings or of any other effbrt by Plaintiff to actively protect himsclf' against the ;inti c i pat ccl 13). li i ni i den t i t j. theft res u 1ti ng lioiii I k Ikndan t'j. all eged c o 11 d 11 t . c Page 4 of 5 [* 5] all the reasons stated herein abo\ e and in the totalit! of the papers siibmittcd herein. it the re fo re 14 I4or O I W E H ~ I ) ,that thc ab01 e referenced applications b j [lefendants are lierebj granted to the e\triit specified I-~ereiii abo\ e, the Coiiiplaint herein is herebj dismissed. and this action is rhttrefbre disposed; and it is further ORDERED, that Counsel for the moving parties herein are herebj, directed to s e n e a coopj~of this order. \\ itli Notice of Entrj,. iip011 Counsel for all parties and upon the Calendar Clerk of this Court and the Suffolh County Clerk. Lvithin tkventy (20) days of the date is order is entered by the Siil lblk County Clerk. Ilntcd: Ri\ erheatl, New York June 28,2012 r--r X F I N A L DISPOSITION SCAN _ _ ~ ---I_ . _ _ _ Timothy Coyle 46 Ciro Street I Iuntington. NY 1 1743 I x \ \ i s Jjrisbois Risgaard & Smith, LLP 199 M 1ter Street KC\\York, N Y 10038 Page 5 o f 5 4 ~ N O N - I I N A L DISI OSII ION ____ DO _O~ SCAN _ N T _ ~~ i

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.