This action involves the performance of interior design services by plaintiff with respect to the renovation of two of defendant's properties. The first counterclaim alleged breach of fiduciary duty by plaintiff. Since the purported agreement between the parties does not expressly or otherwise provide for either an agency or fiduciary relationship, the court must look to the relationship between the parties (see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
FRANK v. SOBEL
38 A.D.3d 229 (2007)
831 N.Y.S.2d 151
ANDREW FRANK, Doing Business as ANDREW FRANK INTERIOR DESIGN, Respondent, v. HOWARD SOBEL, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided March 6, 2007.
Decided March 6, 2007.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
