From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Graubard Mollen Dannett & Horowitz v. Moskovitz
New York Court of Appeals
86 N.Y.2d 112, 653 N.E.2d 1179 (1995)
The law firm Graubard Mollen Dannett & Horowitz (Graubard) (plaintiff) sued former senior partner Irving Moskovitz and his two tax partners (defendants) for taking a client when they left the firm. Moskovitz brought in worldwide pharmaceutical giant F. Hoffman LaRoche (LaRoche) as a client in 1959. Graubard provided LaRoche mostly provided legal services in international taxation, Moskovitz’s specialty, but also handled some corporate and litigation work. LaRoche billings exceeded $1 million annually. In 1982 the firm adopted a plan for senior partners to retire and transition management to junior partners. The retirement agreement said retirees would avoid impairing Graubard’s relationship with existing clients and business and integrate relationships between Graubard clients and other partners. Moskovitz allegedly verbally assured that the retirees would do all they could to secure the firm’s future and institutionalize clients, especially key clients, shortly before approaching another senior partner about starting a new partnership. After Moskovitz became “of counsel” to Graubard, a legal-search consultant referred him to the law firm LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacCrae (LeBoeuf). Moskovitz had represented LaRoche for over 30 years and was handling a serious La Roche tax matter. Moskovitz requested and received assurances that LaRoche would transfer its business to LeBoeuf if Moskovitz moved there. When Moskovitz and the two tax partners announced their resignations, Graubard locked them out of their offices and sued for fraud, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. LaRoche promptly transferred its files to LeBoeuf. Moskovitz requested summary judgment, arguing he had a duty to inform LaRoche he was changing firms. The trial court denied summary judgment, and Moskovitz appealed. The appellate court affirmed but granted leave to appeal on a certified question. Moskovitz appealed asking three questions, with the key question whether departing partners can solicit firm clients.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.