Opinion
February 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).
We agree that plaintiffs' unsupported contentions that it was fraudulently induced into executing the release and that Bowie breached a fiduciary duty are insufficient to set aside the release that plaintiff gave Bowie. Moreover, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for a breach of fiduciary duty independent of the breach of contract claim alleged in their complaint. "`[U]nless the contract creates a relation, out of which relation springs a duty, independent of the mere contract obligation, though there may be a breach of contract, there is no tort, since there is no duty to be violated'" (Apple Records v. Capitol Records, 137 A.D.2d 50, 55, quoting Rich v. New York Cent. Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 87 N.Y. 382, 394). We have considered plaintiffs' remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.