Carr v. Hayes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carr v. Hayes

92 A.D.3d 534, 938 N.Y.2d 435

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 534 (Carr v. Hayes) 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

Carr v. Hayes, 92 A.D.3d 534, 938 N.Y.2d 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs conclusory allegations that his ex-wife, Clements, [535]*535and her divorce attorney, Hayes, who also represented plaintiff in the sale of the couple’s home, defrauded plaintiff out of his share of the proceeds of that sale, are insufficient to state a cause of action sounding in fraud and breach of trust (see CPLR 3016; see generally Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492 [2008]). Moreover, plaintiffs unsupported assertions that all of the documentation regarding the sale of the home, submitted to the court below, was “fraudulent,” “false” and “staged,” are insufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims for fraud, conversion and legal malpractice (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Ren wick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31655(U).]

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

Plaintiffs conclusory allegations that his ex-wife, Clements, [535]*535and her divorce attorney, Hayes, who also represented plaintiff in the sale of the couple’s home, defrauded plaintiff out of his share of the proceeds of that sale, are insufficient to state a cause of action sounding in fraud and breach of trust (see CPLR 3016; see generally Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492 [2008]). Moreover, plaintiffs unsupported assertions that all of the documentation regarding the sale of the home, submitted to the court below, was “fraudulent,” “false” and “staged,” are insufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims for fraud, conversion and legal malpractice (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Ren wick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31655(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 534, 938 N.Y.2d 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-hayes-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack