Allstate Insurance v. Buziashvili

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allstate Insurance v. Buziashvili

49 A.D.3d 423, 853 N.Y.2d 876

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 423 (Allstate Insurance v. Buziashvili) 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

Allstate Insurance v. Buziashvili, 49 A.D.3d 423, 853 N.Y.2d 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In support of their claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), plaintiffs failed to set forth nonconclusory allegations that the attorney Fuld defendants participated in the “operation or management” of the allegedly corrupt enterprise (see Reves v Ernst & Young, 507 US 170, 179, 182-185 [1993]; cf. Jinaran Land Corp. v Shahbazi, 247 AD2d 263 [1998]). Because the substantive RICO claim was deficient, so was the conspiracy claim (Crab House of Douglaston, Inc. v Newsday, Inc., 418 F Supp 2d 193, 212 [2006]; see generally Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 57 [1999]). Furthermore, dismissal of the common-law fraud cause of action was proper, where plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege false representations or omissions by the Fuld defendants (id.; see CELR 3016 [b]); plaintiffs no longer challenge the dismissal of their General Business Law § 349 claim; and in view of the foregoing, plaintiffs’ cause of action for injunctive relief as against the Fuld defendants must fail.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

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

In support of their claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), plaintiffs failed to set forth nonconclusory allegations that the attorney Fuld defendants participated in the “operation or management” of the allegedly corrupt enterprise (see Reves v Ernst & Young, 507 US 170, 179, 182-185 [1993]; cf. Jinaran Land Corp. v Shahbazi, 247 AD2d 263 [1998]). Because the substantive RICO claim was deficient, so was the conspiracy claim (Crab House of Douglaston, Inc. v Newsday, Inc., 418 F Supp 2d 193, 212 [2006]; see generally Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 57 [1999]). Furthermore, dismissal of the common-law fraud cause of action was proper, where plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege false representations or omissions by the Fuld defendants (id.; see CELR 3016 [b]); plaintiffs no longer challenge the dismissal of their General Business Law § 349 claim; and in view of the foregoing, plaintiffs’ cause of action for injunctive relief as against the Fuld defendants must fail.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 423, 853 N.Y.2d 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-v-buziashvili-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack