In the Kern v. Robert Currie Associates (220 AD2d 255, 632 N.Y.S.2d 75 [1st Dept 1995]) case, the crux of the Court's determination in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was the that the plaintiff relied on the expert advice of the defendant, which could have raised an issue of a fiduciary relationship. This element of reliance on defendants' expertise is not pled in the motion before this court. As the Court stated: "A fiduciary relationship is one founded upon trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another. It is well settled that the same conduct which may constitute the breach of a contractual obligation may also constitute the breach of a duty arising out of the relationship created by the contract but which is independent of the contract itself. However, a conventional business relationship does not create a fiduciary relationship absent other factors, such as the existence of a long-term relationship, lack of arms-length negotiations, or entrustment by an artist with a person who promises to manage and develop the artist's career Here, plaintiff had an arms-length relationship with defendants .... Taken as a whole, plaintiff does not allege more than a conventional business relationship."