Opinion
2012-07-5
Kristin Larkin LoGERFO, etc., appellant, v. TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.
Bull, Morreale & Judelson, P.C., Middletown, N.Y. (Charles A. Judelson of counsel), for appellant. Proskauer Rose, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven E. Obus of counsel), for respondentTrustees of Columbia University in City of New York.
Bull, Morreale & Judelson, P.C., Middletown, N.Y. (Charles A. Judelson of counsel), for appellant. Proskauer Rose, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven E. Obus of counsel), for respondentTrustees of Columbia University in City of New York.
In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appealsfrom a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered July 25, 2011, which, upon a decision of the same court dated June 1, 2011, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
“In reviewing a trial court's findings of fact following a nonjury trial, this Court's authority is as broad as that of the trial court and includes the power to render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to the decision of a trial judge who was in the position to assess the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses” ( Bank of N.Y. v. Spadafora, 92 A.D.3d 629, 630, 938 N.Y.S.2d 200 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809;Marjam Supply Co., Inc. v. All Craft Fabricators, Inc., 94 A.D.3d 954, 942 N.Y.S.2d 218;Bauerschmidt & Sons, Inc. v. Nova Cas. Co., 91 A.D.3d 892, 937 N.Y.S.2d 600). Here, the evidence did not establish that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties. Since the right to an accounting is premised upon the existence of a fiduciary relationship and a breach of the duty imposed by that relationship respecting property in which the party seeking the accounting has an interest ( see Lawrence v. Kennedy, 95 A.D.3d 955, 944 N.Y.S.2d 577;Chalasani v. State Bank of India, N.Y. Branch, 235 A.D.2d 449, 450, 653 N.Y.S.2d 28;Palazzo v. Palazzo, 121 A.D.2d 261, 265, 503 N.Y.S.2d 381), judgment was properly entered in the defendants' favor.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly excluded inadmissible evidence and limited testimony and evidence regarding collateral matters ( see People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 56, 538 N.Y.S.2d 197, 535 N.E.2d 250;People v. Diaz, 85 A.D.3d 1047, 1049–1050, 926 N.Y.S.2d 128,lv. granted18 N.Y.3d 882, 939 N.Y.S.2d 752, 963 N.E.2d 129).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.