VanLeeuwen v. VanLeeuwen

38 A.D.3d 879, 831 N.Y.S.2d 342, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 02743

View New York Official Reports version

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
John VanLeeuwen, et al., appellants, et al., plaintiff,
v.
Henry P. VanLeeuwen, respondent, et al., defendant.
March 27, 2007.

McCarthy Fingar LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Robert H. Rosh of counsel), for appellants.
Benjamin Ostrer & Associates, P.C., Chester, N.Y. (Cynthia Dolan of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs John VanLeeuwen and Louis VanLeeuwen, Sr., appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant Henry P. VanLeeuwen and against them, dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On the record presented, the Supreme Court’s determination that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof that the defendant Henry P. VanLeeuwen breached a fiduciary duty or was unjustly enriched was warranted, and we decline to disturb it ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit.

MILLER, J.P., RITTER, DILLON and ANGIOLILLO, JJ., concur.

N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 2007.

VanLeeuwen v. VanLeeuwen

38 A.D.3d 879, 831 N.Y.S.2d 342, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 02743