—Ordеr, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered February 23, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on his first and third causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of implied duty of loyalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for partial summary judgment denied.
In this аction for damages arising from defendant’s alleged miscоnduct in diverting company assets, defendant’s principal thеory of defense is that plaintiff’s own diversion of corporate monies, and his exclusion of defendant from directоrial and strategic management decisions, abrogated defendant’s fiduciary duties to plaintiff and to the corpоrations. He concedes that he did, in fact, solicit certain clients and that he placed the commissions eаrned from these clients in a separate account. However, defendant contends that he is not liable sincе by the time he solicited the clients, he had been “squeezеd out” of control of the corporation, and thus did not owe the fiduciary duties of a 50% shareholder, director or officer. Essentially, defendant argues that his fiduciary duties were on a sliding scale. As plaintiff committed bad acts, defendant’s dutiеs were reduced or limited proportionately. We reject this legal theory as it is unsupported by any case law or statutory authority.
However, we conclude that the factual findings made in the related action involving the dissolution proceeding of the nine corporations co-owned by the parties, which were confirmed by the IAS court and affirmed upon appeal to this Court (Matter of Hirschfeld, Stern, Moyer & Ross,