Bello v. Cablevision System Corp.

185 A.D.2d 262
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 13, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 262 (Bello v. Cablevision System Corp.) 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
Bello v. Cablevision System Corp., 185 A.D.2d 262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and for violation of the Donnelly Act (General Business Law § 340), the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), dated January 30, 1991, as, upon renewal of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the eleventh cause of action, adhered to the original determination dismissing that cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ eleventh cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation must be dismissed, since the plaintiffs failed to assert facts from which it could be inferred that they justifiably relied to their detriment on the allegedly false information (see, Bello v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 185 AD2d 262 [decided herewith]). Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bello v. Cablevision System Corp.
185 A.D.2d 262 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 A.D.2d 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bello-v-cablevision-system-corp-nyappdiv-1992.