Abrahami v. UPC Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrahami v. UPC Construction Co.

176 A.D.2d 180, 574 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11823

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 19, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 180 (Abrahami v. UPC Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abrahami v. UPC Construction Co., 176 A.D.2d 180, 574 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered December 14, 1990, as amended and supplemented by order of the same court and Justice, entered January 17, 1991, granting, in part, defendants’ motion, pursuant to CPLR 3016 (b), to dismiss the first cause of action of plaintiffs’ verified complaint, and moving defendants’ motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), to dismiss the second cause of action of the verified complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ verified complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants fraudulently misrepresented facts with respect to UPC’s profitability, in order to induce plaintiffs to invest $750,000 in UPC. The Court properly dismissed the first cause of action, sounding in fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, as against the moving defendants, except Heo Peh Lee. While Lee was alleged to have made false representations to plaintiffs on various occasions, the verified complaint failed to satisfy the specificity and particularity requirements of CPLR 3013 and 3016 (b) as to the other moving defendants, since there were no factual allegations alleging that these defendants had made any fraudulent representations to plaintiff or allegations of fact from which it could be inferred that they had agreed or entered into an understanding with the other defendant (against which particular acts of fraud were alleged) to cooperate in any fraudulent scheme. (National Westminster Bank v Weksel, 124 AD2d 144, 147, lv denied 70 NY2d 604; Ferguson v Meridian Distrib. Servs., 155 AD2d 642.)

Plaintiffs’ second cause of action, alleging a claim for money had and received, was also properly dismissed, since they failed to allege receipt of moneys by the moving defendants (Steinberg v Guild, 22 AD2d 775, affd 16 NY2d 791, mot to amend remittur granted 16 NY2d 960). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas and Kupferman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered December 14, 1990, as amended and supplemented by order of the same court and Justice, entered January 17, 1991, granting, in part, defendants’ motion, pursuant to CPLR 3016 (b), to dismiss the first cause of action of plaintiffs’ verified complaint, and moving defendants’ motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), to dismiss the second cause of action of the verified complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ verified complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants fraudulently misrepresented facts with respect to UPC’s profitability, in order to induce plaintiffs to invest $750,000 in UPC. The Court properly dismissed the first cause of action, sounding in fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, as against the moving defendants, except Heo Peh Lee. While Lee was alleged to have made false representations to plaintiffs on various occasions, the verified complaint failed to satisfy the specificity and particularity requirements of CPLR 3013 and 3016 (b) as to the other moving defendants, since there were no factual allegations alleging that these defendants had made any fraudulent representations to plaintiff or allegations of fact from which it could be inferred that they had agreed or entered into an understanding with the other defendant (against which particular acts of fraud were alleged) to cooperate in any fraudulent scheme. (National Westminster Bank v Weksel, 124 AD2d 144, 147, lv denied 70 NY2d 604; Ferguson v Meridian Distrib. Servs., 155 AD2d 642.)

Plaintiffs’ second cause of action, alleging a claim for money had and received, was also properly dismissed, since they failed to allege receipt of moneys by the moving defendants (Steinberg v Guild, 22 AD2d 775, affd 16 NY2d 791, mot to amend remittur granted 16 NY2d 960). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 180, 574 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrahami-v-upc-construction-co-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack