Dumas v. Fiorito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dumas v. Fiorito

13 A.D.3d 332, 786 N.Y.S.2d 106, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14872

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 6, 2004·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered February 23, 2004, which, among other things, granted the motion of the defendant Gayle Metz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

[333]*333Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Gayle Metz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The cause of action to recover damages for fraud was not pleaded with the specificity required under CPLR 3016 (b) (see Scomello v Caronia, 232 AD2d 625 [1996]; 125 Assoc. v Cralin Trading Assoc., 196 AD2d 630 [1993]; Penna v Caratozzolo, 131 AD2d 738 [1987]). Conclusory allegations such as those pleaded by the plaintiffs do not satisfy this requirement (see Sforza v Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 210 AD2d 214 [1994]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P, H. Miller, S. Miller and Spolzino, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered February 23, 2004, which, among other things, granted the motion of the defendant Gayle Metz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

[333]*333Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Gayle Metz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The cause of action to recover damages for fraud was not pleaded with the specificity required under CPLR 3016 (b) (see Scomello v Caronia, 232 AD2d 625 [1996]; 125 Assoc. v Cralin Trading Assoc., 196 AD2d 630 [1993]; Penna v Caratozzolo, 131 AD2d 738 [1987]). Conclusory allegations such as those pleaded by the plaintiffs do not satisfy this requirement (see Sforza v Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 210 AD2d 214 [1994]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P, H. Miller, S. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Dumas v. Fiorito, 13 A.D.3d 332, 786 N.Y.S.2d 106, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

13 A.D.3d 332 (Dumas v. Fiorito) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related