Dispenza v. Mangano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dispenza v. Mangano

266 A.D.2d 496, 698 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12255

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 496 (Dispenza v. Mangano) 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

Dispenza v. Mangano, 266 A.D.2d 496, 698 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated December 22, 1998, which denied his motion, inter alia, to stay enforcement of a stipulation of settlement dated August 12, 1998, entered into in the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, and granted the cross motion of the defendants Rosolino Mangano and Sam Mangano individually and d/b/a Houston Realty No. 2, LLC, and d/b/a Famous Original Ray’s Pizza, and B.M. Group, Inc., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for fraud (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; Fitzpatrick Constr. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 138 AD2d 446). The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, 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 fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated December 22, 1998, which denied his motion, inter alia, to stay enforcement of a stipulation of settlement dated August 12, 1998, entered into in the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, and granted the cross motion of the defendants Rosolino Mangano and Sam Mangano individually and d/b/a Houston Realty No. 2, LLC, and d/b/a Famous Original Ray’s Pizza, and B.M. Group, Inc., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for fraud (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; Fitzpatrick Constr. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 138 AD2d 446). The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 496, 698 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dispenza-v-mangano-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack