Daniel Gale Associates, Inc. v. O'Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniel Gale Associates, Inc. v. O'Connor

246 A.D.2d 622, 667 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 611

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 622 (Daniel Gale Associates, Inc. v. O'Connor) 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

Daniel Gale Associates, Inc. v. O'Connor, 246 A.D.2d 622, 667 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered March 7, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action asserted in the amended complaint, and to dismiss the second cause of action asserted in the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the defendants’ motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The second cause of action to recover damages based on fraud should have been dismissed. The plaintiff offered no authority to support its contention that the conduct complained of supports a claim of fraud or fraud in the inducement, or otherwise states a cause of action.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered March 7, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action asserted in the amended complaint, and to dismiss the second cause of action asserted in the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the defendants’ motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The second cause of action to recover damages based on fraud should have been dismissed. The plaintiff offered no authority to support its contention that the conduct complained of supports a claim of fraud or fraud in the inducement, or otherwise states a cause of action.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 622, 667 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-gale-associates-inc-v-oconnor-nyappdiv-1998.