DeSouza v. Sbarro, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeSouza v. Sbarro, Inc.

221 A.D.2d 309, 635 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11227

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 309 (DeSouza v. Sbarro, Inc.) 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

DeSouza v. Sbarro, Inc., 221 A.D.2d 309, 635 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful discharge and negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered May 24, 1994, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the action.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The plaintiff’s allegations fall far short of pleading a cognizable claim for fraudulent inducement of employment (cf., Backer v Lewit, 180 AD2d 134; cf., Stewart v Jackson & Nash, 976 F2d 86; cf., Stark v Sbarro, Inc., US Dist Ct, ED NY, June 1,1994, Platt, J.; see also, CPLR 3016 [b]). Further, to the extent that the third cause of action asserts a theory of recovery based upon negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff has wholly failed to allege facts establishing the existence of a fiduciary duty owed to him by the defendants (see, White v Guarente, 43 NY2d 356, 362-363; see also, Stewart v Jackson & Nash, supra, at 90).

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful discharge and negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered May 24, 1994, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the action.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The plaintiff’s allegations fall far short of pleading a cognizable claim for fraudulent inducement of employment (cf., Backer v Lewit, 180 AD2d 134; cf., Stewart v Jackson & Nash, 976 F2d 86; cf., Stark v Sbarro, Inc., US Dist Ct, ED NY, June 1,1994, Platt, J.; see also, CPLR 3016 [b]). Further, to the extent that the third cause of action asserts a theory of recovery based upon negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff has wholly failed to allege facts establishing the existence of a fiduciary duty owed to him by the defendants (see, White v Guarente, 43 NY2d 356, 362-363; see also, Stewart v Jackson & Nash, supra, at 90).

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 309, 635 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desouza-v-sbarro-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack