tracking the language in Chestman in a case under § 1346). Halloran offers two reasons why the county chairs may have breached a fiduciary, duty under federal law but not under New York law, neither of which is persuasive. First, he suggests that New York law does not impose fiduciary duties upon unpaid volunteers. ' But he cites no case law so holding, and there are intimations to the contrary in New York cases. See Schneiderman ex rel. People v. Lower Esopus River Watch, Inc., 975 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2013 WL 3014915, *20 (Table) (Sup. Ct., Ulster Cty.2013)' (“Fiduciary duties arise regardless of whether the party in whom trust is reposed is a volunteer or is compensated.”); cf. Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Barkan, 16 N.Y.3d 643, 648, 653, 926 N.Y.S.2d 349, 950 N.E.2d 85 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Straw v. Murray Hill Mews Owners Corp., 10
holding that because negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims are covered by the martin act these claims must be dismissed holding that a developers claim for breach of fiduciary duty was actually a contract action properly brought in the court of claims holding that under texas law limited partner could not bring breach of fiduciary duty claims without the partnership because the partners claims would be indirect and duplicative of the partnerships claims holding that several claims including one for breach of fiduciary duty against a volunteer school board member were timely without addressing the merits of the claims holding that slusa did not preempt statelaw claims for conversion breach of contract breach of fiduciary duty and negligent supervision against securities brokerage firm