Roni LLC v. Rachel L. Arfa
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------No. 206 SSM 35
Roni LLC, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Rachel L. Arfa, et al.,
Defendants,
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky &
Popeo, P.C., et al.,
Respondents.
Submitted
Submitted
Arfa et al.
Submitted
Cohn Ferris Glovsky
Submitted
by John Van Der Tuin, for appellants.
by David J. Katz, for respondents Rachel L.
by Mark G. Cunha, for respondents Mintz Levin
& Popeo, P.C. et al.
by Aytan Y. Bellin, for respondent Lukashok.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed
with costs.
Plaintiffs' conclusory pleadings do not give rise to
an inference that the attorney defendants knowingly participated
in the alleged aiding and abetting of a breach of fiduciary duty
by providing substantial assistance to the promoter defendants in
their purported commission scheme (see Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d
113, 126 [1st Dept 2003]; see generally Eurycleia Partners, LP v
Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553 [2009]).
- 1 -
- 2 -
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SSM No. 35
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,
order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman
and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones
concur.
Decided September 16, 2010
- 2 -
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.
