Summary
finding that plaintiff was bared from bringing a negligent misrepresentation claim where the pleadings failed to establish a joint venture
Summary of this case from Solutia Inc. v. FMC Corp.Opinion
October 31, 2000.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 14, 1999, which, upon the trial court's ruling at the close of evidence, dismissed all causes of action brought against defendant McLaughlin and the causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty brought against defendant Shearman Sterling (SS), and, upon the jury's verdict, entitled defendant SS to judgment against plaintiff on her remaining cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Pro Se, for plaintiff-appellant.
Alan S. Goudiss, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Sullivan, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin, JJ.
The court properly concluded that plaintiff had failed to set forth a prima facie case that defendants had been unjustly enriched through her efforts. Uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that SS's expenses exceeded its revenues on the project in question and plaintiff's testimony did not substantiate her assertion that the firm was unjustly enriched by receiving an "intangible benefit".
Also insufficiently supported were plaintiff's causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud/negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that an actual "joint venture" between her and defendant firm had been embarked upon in the context of which the parties would have been related as fiduciaries, and the absence of a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendants precluded any recovery by plaintiff from defendants on a theory of negligent misrepresentation (see, Stewart v. Jackson Nash, 976 F.2d 86, 90).
Plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to sustain her fraud causes of action, since "a representation of opinion or a prediction of something which is hoped or expected to occur in the future will not sustain an action for fraud" (Zanani v. Savad, 217 A.D.2d 696, 697; see also, Platus Corp. Pension Plan v. Nazareth, 271 A.D.2d 422, 705 N.Y.S.2d 649).
We have reviewed plaintiff's various claims of error respecting the trial court's procedural and evidentiary rulings and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.