Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
BCG Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young (Canada) Inc.
Citations: 2017 NY Slip Op 8746; 156 A.D.3d 531; 67 N.Y.S.3d 588Docket: 5242 652669/12
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 13, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
BCG Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young (Canada) Inc. involves an appeal regarding a decision from the Supreme Court of New York County which granted defendants' motion to dismiss several claims by the plaintiffs, BCG Partners, while partially allowing others. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, affirming the dismissal of claims for tortious interference with contractual relations, prospective business relations, conspiracy, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, while also dismissing the claim for theft of trade secrets. Key points include: 1. **Tortious Interference Dismissals**: The court found the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead "but for" causation regarding the Nevada and South Carolina agreements, rendering their claims conclusory. They also did not demonstrate wrongful means in their claims related to broker agreements and prospective business relations. 2. **Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty**: The court determined that the plaintiffs' arguments were unpreserved and unconvincing, noting that no fiduciary relationship exists simply from employment. 3. **Unjust Enrichment Claim**: The relationship between the parties was deemed too tenuous to support a claim for unjust enrichment. 4. **Theft of Trade Secrets**: The court dismissed this claim, concluding that the defendants' actions—specifically, offering competitive compensation to brokers—were not wrongful or improper as defined by precedent. 5. **Legal Standards Applied**: The decision referenced established legal principles regarding wrongful means and the nature of fiduciary relationships, affirming that mere persuasion does not constitute wrongful interference. The court ultimately upheld the majority of the lower court's rulings, confirming that the plaintiffs did not meet the required legal standards for the claims dismissed. The decision is thus a significant affirmation of the need for robust factual allegations in tort claims related to business relations.