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.
BGC Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young (Canada) Inc.
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 2290Docket: 5242 652669/12
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 3, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
BGC Partners, Inc. and others (Plaintiffs) filed an appeal against Avison Young (Canada) Inc. and others (Defendants) concerning several causes of action. The Supreme Court, New York County, previously granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss claims for tortious interference with contractual and prospective business relations, conspiracy, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, while denying dismissal on claims for aiding and abetting breach of the duty of fidelity, theft of trade secrets, and injunctive relief. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting the motion to dismiss the claims for theft of trade secrets, aiding and abetting breach of the duty of fidelity, and injunctive relief, while affirming other dismissals. The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to establish "but for" causation for tortious interference with contracts and that they did not demonstrate wrongful means for the tortious interference claims. Additionally, no fiduciary relationship was established from the employment context, undermining the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed due to an overly attenuated relationship between the parties. The court concluded that the alleged actions of the Defendants, such as offering competitive compensation to brokers, were not wrongful, leading to the dismissal of the theft of trade secrets and aiding and abetting breach of fidelity claims. The court indicated that substantial assistance for aiding and abetting requires more than merely offering competitive compensation, and the Plaintiffs did not present sufficient allegations of substantial assistance. The Appellate Division dismissed the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief as unavailing. The prior decision from December 14, 2017, was vacated, and the case was directed to enter judgment accordingly.