Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed those claims by the plaintiff which were premised on the defendant's alleged violation of a fiduciary duty owed to him. The defendant was the attorney representing various limited partners in several limited partnerships in which the plaintiff was a general partner. Accordingly, he had no fiduciary obligation to the plaintiff under principles governing either partnerships or attorney-client relationships ( see generally, Lichtyger v. Franchard Corp., 18 N.Y.2d 528, 536; Nicoleau v. Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 181 A.D.2d 815).

Additionally, the allegations of the complaint fail to set forth the requisite elements to support viable claims sounding in fraud, tortious interference with business relations, or tortious interference with contractual relations ( see generally, Strasser v. Prudential Sec., 218 A.D.2d 526; EDP Hosp. Computer Sys. v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 212 A.D.2d 570; Shea v. Hambro Am., 200 A.D.2d 371). Similarly, the plaintiff's breach of contract cause of action was properly dismissed inasmuch as the defendant was not a party to the agreements in question ( see, Walz v Todd Honeywell, 195 A.D.2d 455).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Rosenblatt, J.P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.