Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Wojciech Perkowski, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Wojciech Perkowski, Inc.

291 A.D.2d 219, 737 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1518

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered October 24, 2001, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs fourth cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3016 (b); 3211 (a) (7) and 3212, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based on the allegations in the complaint, which must be taken as true on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (see, Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366), and the affidavits properly submitted by plaintiff in opposition to the motion to dismiss (see, Mulder v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, 208 AD2d 301, 307), plaintiffs fourth cause of action sufficiently states the elements of the claim and clearly informs defendant-appellant of the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud (see, Lanzi v Brooks, 43 NY2d 778, 780). The evidentiary matter submitted by plaintiff was also sufficient to raise triable issues of fact precluding a grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellant. Concur — Williams, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered October 24, 2001, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs fourth cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3016 (b); 3211 (a) (7) and 3212, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based on the allegations in the complaint, which must be taken as true on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (see, Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366), and the affidavits properly submitted by plaintiff in opposition to the motion to dismiss (see, Mulder v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, 208 AD2d 301, 307), plaintiffs fourth cause of action sufficiently states the elements of the claim and clearly informs defendant-appellant of the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud (see, Lanzi v Brooks, 43 NY2d 778, 780). The evidentiary matter submitted by plaintiff was also sufficient to raise triable issues of fact precluding a grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellant. Concur — Williams, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger and Buckley, JJ.

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Wojciech Perkowski, Inc., 291 A.D.2d 219, 737 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

291 A.D.2d 219 (Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Wojciech Perkowski, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related