Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Remede Consulting Group, Inc. v. Pitter

Docket 2024-00700

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilReversed
Filed
Jurisdiction
New York
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type
Opinion
Case type
Civil
Disposition
Reversed
Citation
2026 NY Slip Op 02683
Docket
2024-00700

Appeal from a judgment following an order granting summary judgment on liability and damages in an action to recover for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty

Summary

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had granted summary judgment to Remede Consulting Group on damages against employee-defendant Jason Pitter for misuse of a corporate credit card. The court affirmed that Remede proved Pitter's liability on breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty because Pitter had received the corporate card policy, acknowledged it, and used the card for personal expenses without raising a triable issue of authorization. However, the appellate court held the plaintiff did not establish a precise, uncontested sum owed, so summary judgment on damages awarding $135,246.77 was denied and the judgment was reversed on that point.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the plaintiff established entitlement to summary judgment on liability for breach of contract based on misuse of a corporate credit card
  • Whether the plaintiff established entitlement to summary judgment on causes of action for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty based on misuse of a corporate credit card
  • Whether the plaintiff established a precise, undisputed amount of damages resulting from the misuse to support summary judgment on damages

Court's Reasoning

The court held that Remede met its initial burden on liability by producing the corporate credit card policy and Pitter's signed acknowledgment limiting the card to business expenses, and Pitter's claim of oral authorization from the company president did not raise a triable issue. For conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff showed unauthorized use of company funds and an agency relationship, and Pitter offered no admissible evidence creating a fact issue. But the plaintiff failed to establish a precise calculation of damages, leaving triable issues about the amount owed that preclude summary judgment on damages.

Authorities Cited

  • JER Realty, LLC v Pick & Pack Hub, LLC236 AD3d 1004
  • RD Legal Funding Partners, LP v Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP195 AD3d 968
  • Spilman v Matyas212 AD3d 859

Parties

Plaintiff
Remede Consulting Group, Inc.
Defendant
Jason Pitter
Judge
Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.
Judge
Cheryl E. Chambers, J.
Judge
Lillian Wan, J.
Judge
Janice A. Taylor, J.

Key Dates

Decision date
2026-04-29
Supreme Court order granting summary judgment
2023-12-11
Supreme Court judgment entered
2023-12-12

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Prepare damages proof

    The plaintiff should compile detailed, admissible evidence and calculations showing the precise amount of losses attributable to the card misuse to support a damages claim at trial or summary judgment re-application.

  2. 2

    Defendant consider challenging damages

    The defendant should review the plaintiff's damage calculations and gather contrary evidence or cross-examination points to preserve challenges at trial or in opposition to further motions.

  3. 3

    Consult counsel about further proceedings

    Both parties should consult their attorneys about scheduling trial or settlement discussions now that liability is established but damages remain in dispute.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide about liability?
The appellate court agreed that the company proved Pitter was liable for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty based on his unauthorized personal use of the corporate credit card.
Why was the judgment reversed if liability was proven?
The judgment was reversed only as to the award of damages because the plaintiff failed to show a precise, undisputed amount owed, so summary judgment on damages was improper.
Who is affected by this decision?
Remede and defendant Jason Pitter are directly affected; the case will continue on the issue of how much Pitter owes.
What happens next in the case?
Because damages were not finally determined, the case will proceed on the issue of the amount of damages, either to trial or further proceedings to resolve the sum owed.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
Remede Consulting Group, Inc. v Pitter - 2026 NY Slip Op 02683

Remede Consulting Group, Inc. v Pitter

2026 NY Slip Op 02683

April 29, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Remede Consulting Group, Inc., respondent,

v

Jason Pitter, appellant, et al., defendants

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 29, 2026

2024-00700, (Index No. 606756/19)

Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.

Cheryl E. Chambers

Lillian Wan

Janice A. Taylor, JJ.

Albert Van-Lare, New York, NY, for appellant.

Law Office of John S. Desiderio, P.C, Garden City Park, NY, for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Jason Pitter appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (R. Bruce Cozzens, Jr., J.), dated December 12, 2023. The judgment, upon an order of the same court entered December 11, 2023, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the causes of action alleging breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty as alleged misuse of a corporate credit card insofar as asserted against the defendant Jason Pitter and on the issue of damages to the extent of awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $135,246.77, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Jason Pitter in the principal sum of $135,246.77. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (
see
CPLR 5512[a]).

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of damages to the extent of awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $135,246.77 is denied, and the order is modified accordingly.

The plaintiff, Remede Consulting Group, Inc., commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Jason Pitter, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that Pitter had entered into a contract with the plaintiff, Pitter's employer, regarding Pitter's use of a corporate credit card he had been issued, and that Pitter had breached that contract, converted company funds, and breached his fiduciary duty by using the corporate credit card for personal expenses. It is not disputed that Pitter used the corporate credit card for personal expenses. Rather, Pitter contends that his use was authorized by Jerome Daniel, the plaintiff's president.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the causes of action alleging breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty as alleged misuse of the corporate credit card insofar as asserted against Pitter and on the issue of damages to the extent of awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $135,246.77. In an order entered December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion. On December 12, 2023, the court issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against Pitter in the principal sum of $135,246.77. Pitter appeals.

"The elements for a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are 'the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant's breach of its contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach'" (
JER Realty, LLC v Pick & Pack Hub, LLC
, 236 AD3d 1004, 1005, quoting
Fucoco Group, LLP v Weisman & Co.
, 222 AD3d 619, 621).

Here, the plaintiff met its prima facie burden as to Pitter's liability on so much of the breach of contract cause of action as alleged misuse of the corporate credit card by establishing that Pitter had received a copy of the plaintiff's corporate credit card policy, which expressly limited use of the corporate credit card to authorized business expenses, and that Pitter had executed an agreement acknowledging the policy and agreeing to abide by its terms. Under the circumstances, Pitter's contention that there was an oral agreement between himself and Daniel authorizing Pitter's use of the corporate credit card for personal expenses was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (
see

Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn.
, 32 NY2d 285, 290;
Gallagher v Long Is. Plastic Surgical Group, P.C.
, 113 AD3d 652, 653).

"'To establish a cause of action to recover damages for conversion, a plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and must show that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over the thing in question to the exclusion of the plaintiff's rights'" (
RD Legal Funding Partners, LP v Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP
, 195 AD3d 968, 969, quoting
National Ctr. for Crisis Mgt., Inc. v Lerner
, 91 AD3d 920, 920). "'Conversion occurs when funds designated for a particular purpose are used for an unauthorized purpose'" (
Petrone v Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, LLP
, 150 AD3d 776, 777 [alteration omitted], quoting
East Schodack Fire Co., Inc. v Milkewicz
, 140 AD3d 1255, 1256).

Here, the plaintiff met its prima facie burden as to Pitter's liability on so much of the conversion cause of action as alleged misuse of the corporate credit card by showing that he used the plaintiff's funds in an unauthorized manner (
see

RD Legal Funding Partners, LP v Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP
, 195 AD3d at 969-970;
World Ambulette Transp., Inc. v Lee
, 161 AD3d 1028, 1031). In opposition, Pitter failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

"'The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant's misconduct'" (
WMC Realty Corp. v City of Yonkers
, 193 AD3d 1018, 1023, quoting
Litvinoff v Wright
, 150 AD3d 714, 715). "'A fiduciary relationship exists between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for or give advice for the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relation'" (
id.
, quoting
AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co.
, 11 NY3d 146, 158). "'Agency is a legal relationship between a principal and an agent. It is a fiduciary relationship which results from the manifestation of consent of one person to allow another to act on his or her behalf and subject to his or her control, and consent by the other so to act'" (
Sneider v Great S. Bay Surgical Assoc. & Vascular Lab, LLP
, 235 AD3d 685, 687, quoting
Faith Assembly v Titledge of N.Y. Abstract, LLC
, 106 AD3d 47, 58).

The plaintiff met its prima facie burden as to Pitter's liability on so much of the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action as alleged misuse of the corporate credit card by showing the existence of a principal-agent relationship between the plaintiff and Pitter, and that Pitter breached his corresponding fiduciary duties to the plaintiff by improperly using the corporate credit card for personal gain. In opposition, Pitter failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the causes of action alleging breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty as alleged misuse of the corporate credit card insofar as asserted against Pitter.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish a precise determination of the amount of money owed to it as a result of Pitter's misuse of the corporate credit card (
see

Spilman v Matyas
, 212 AD3d 859, 860;
RMP Capital Corp. v Victory Jet, LLC
, 139 AD3d 836, 838). Since there are
triable issues of fact with respect to the amount of damages, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of damages (
see

Ben Ciccone, Inc. v Naber Elec. Corp.
, 214 AD3d 936, 938;
Spilman v Matyas
, 212 AD3d at 861).

IANNACCI, J.P., CHAMBERS, WAN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph