| LoGerfo v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05395 [97 AD3d 547] |
| July 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Kristin Larkin LoGerfo, Appellant, v Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
Proskauer Rose, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven E. Obus of counsel), for respondent Trustees
of Columbia University in City of New York.
In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from 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 AD3d 629, 630 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Marjam Supply Co., Inc. v All Craft Fabricators, Inc., 94 AD3d 954 [2012]; Bauerschmidt & Sons, Inc. v Nova Cas. Co., 91 AD3d 892 [2012]). 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 AD3d 955 [2012]; Chalasani v State Bank of India, N.Y. Branch, 235 AD2d 449, 450 [1997]; Palazzo v Palazzo, 121 AD2d 261, 265 [1986]), 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 NY2d 40, 56 [1988]; People v Diaz, 85 AD3d 1047, 1049-1050 [2011], lv granted 18 NY3d 882 [2012]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 32 Misc 3d 1202(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 51147(U).]