Arcidiacono v. Maizes & Maizes, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arcidiacono v. Maizes & Maizes, LLP

8 A.D.3d 119, 778 N.Y.S.2d 270, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8355

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

DecidedJune 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 119 (Arcidiacono v. Maizes & Maizes, LLP) 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

Arcidiacono v. Maizes & Maizes, LLP, 8 A.D.3d 119, 778 N.Y.S.2d 270, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[120]*120Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered March 25, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, breach of duty, malpractice and negligence were properly dismissed by reason of their failure to allege any basis for an award of damages (see Gordon v De Laurentiis Corp., 141 AD2d 435, 436 [1988]; IGEN, Inc. v White, 250 AD2d 463 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 818 [1998]), or to plead facts from which damages attributable to defendants’ conduct might be reasonably inferred (cf. Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan v Ellenberg, 199 AD2d 45 [1993]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

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

[120]*120Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered March 25, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, breach of duty, malpractice and negligence were properly dismissed by reason of their failure to allege any basis for an award of damages (see Gordon v De Laurentiis Corp., 141 AD2d 435, 436 [1988]; IGEN, Inc. v White, 250 AD2d 463 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 818 [1998]), or to plead facts from which damages attributable to defendants’ conduct might be reasonably inferred (cf. Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan v Ellenberg, 199 AD2d 45 [1993]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 119, 778 N.Y.S.2d 270, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arcidiacono-v-maizes-maizes-llp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack