Bit Parts

N.Y. Appellate Division Affirms Denial of Motion To Dismiss Personal Manager's Lawsuit Against Management Attorney

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a New York County Supreme Court decision that denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against an attorney sued by a personal manager for whom the lawyer had worked. Stolper v. Burbacki, 14772. Stella Stolper claimed she hired her niece Zarina Burbacki to be chief of staff and in-house counsel at Stolper's Wikked Entertainment management company. Stolper later sued Burbacki for breach of fiduciary duty, converting funds, legal malpractice and defaming Stolper. As had been explained by the county court, Stolper alleged in part: that Burbacki and Stolper's ex-husband "created their own, competing companies … for the purpose of poaching Wikked's clients and diverting business opportunities for their own benefit"; "that Ms. Burbacki advised Ms. Stolper against certain business opportunities in bad faith to further her own interests"; "that Ms. Burbacki made disparaging comments about Ms. Stolper to her sole talent management client, Mariah Carey, and to others in the entertainment industry"; and that "Burbacki consistently committed malpractice by either negligently and improperly performing legal tasks or by negligently failing to perform necessary and required legal tasks." In moving to dismiss Stolper's complaint, Burbacki argued she had been hired to work as Stolper's assistant, not her lawyer,  but that even if the latter were true, that Stolper's lawsuit was barred by the settlement and mutual release of a sexual harassment suit Stolper had filed against Carey. Stolper v Mariah Carey, 651806/2018. The appellate division noted that the lower court determined the "Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement, which states in relevant part that the parties and all their respective 'lawyers, and all others who may take any interest in the matters herein released (the Stolper Releasees) and (the Carey Releasees), collectively (the Releasees), hereby fully and forever release, acquit, and discharge each other and each other's … lawyers and all others who may take any interest in the matters herein …' only released the parties and each other's lawyers." The appellate division concluded: "Contrary to defendant's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the Mutual Release Agreement between plaintiff and a third party, in which plaintiff agreed to release claims against the third party's agents including their lawyers, barred plaintiff's instant claims against defendant arising out of her alleged misconduct while she was employed as plaintiff's attorney …"