Levine v. Levine
Opinion of the Court
—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York
The conclusions of the fact-finding court are supported by the record and the contrary interpretations of fact and credibility offered by plaintiffs do not warrant disturbing these determinations with respect to both the finding that Albert Levine knew of the commissions being paid to his brother and nephew as well as to the rejection of the business valuation by plaintiffs’ expert, which was premised on severely impeached assumptions and techniques (see, Matter of North Star Elec. Contr., 174 AD2d 373, lv denied 79 NY2d 752).
Since the trial court found that there had been no breach of fiduciary duty because the allegedly secret commissions had been disclosed, defendant law firm is not liable for the alleged failure to advise plaintiffs of such payments, and we accordingly dismiss such malpractice claim.
We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.