Feldesman v. Lacher

212 A.D.2d 487, 623 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2317
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 28, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 487 (Feldesman v. Lacher) 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
Feldesman v. Lacher, 212 A.D.2d 487, 623 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 18, 1993, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first five causes of action for failure to state a cause of action, with leave to resubmit a proposed amended fifth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The first four causes of action in the complaint, which sought to recover purported overpayments made to defendant, who served as "of counsel” to plaintiff’s predecessor firm, three years after he resigned, were properly dismissed since plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an enforceable contract upon which such causes of action were predicated. While plaintiff’s allegations, as supplemented by its additional submissions, are to be accorded their most favorable intendment (Arrington v New York Times Co., 55 NY2d 433, 442), where, as here, the allegations consist of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims which are either inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence, they are not entitled to such consideration (Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate, 204 AD2d 233, 233-234).

The fifth cause of action for fraud was also properly dismissed, with leave to replead upon a proper factual showing, since the allegations contained therein failed to state to whom defendant’s purported representations were made, when they were made and the clients to whom they referred (CPLR 3016 [b]; see, Bramex Assocs. v CBI Agencies, 149 AD2d 383). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Oasis Invs. II Master Fund Ltd. v. Chang YE Inv. Co. Ltd.
2026 NY Slip Op 31050(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
M.V. v. Bravo Media LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 50307(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Total Asset Recovery Servs. LLC v. Metlife, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 33840(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Matter of Chen
2024 NY Slip Op 33714(U) (New York Surrogate's Court, 2024)
Feld v. Viceroy Devices Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 32583(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
GNHC 1703-518, LLC v. Venari Partners, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 32388(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Gramercy Funds Mgt. LLC v. Schlumberger N.V.
2024 NY Slip Op 31855(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Khan v. Mediamorph, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 31201(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Haart v. Scaglia
New York Supreme Court, 2023
Davis v. Port
2021 NY Slip Op 02241 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.D.2d 487, 623 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feldesman-v-lacher-nyappdiv-1995.