Flexo-Craft Prints, Inc. v. HBE Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flexo-Craft Prints, Inc. v. HBE Leasing Corp.

168 A.D.2d 665, 563 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15997

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 665 (Flexo-Craft Prints, Inc. v. HBE Leasing Corp.) 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

Flexo-Craft Prints, Inc. v. HBE Leasing Corp., 168 A.D.2d 665, 563 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages based on fraud, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated May 12, 1989, which denied its motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[666]*666On this appeal, the defendant challenges the Supreme Court’s determination which denied its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court concluded that a valid cause of action based on fraud was stated therein.

We agree with the defendant that a fraud cause of action was not alleged by the plaintiff (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; Glassman v Catli, 111 AD2d 744). Nevertheless, we find that the allegations in the amended complaint sufficiently set forth a cause of action to recover an alleged monetary overpayment made by the plaintiff to the defendant. Accordingly, dismissal of the amended complaint was not warranted. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages based on fraud, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated May 12, 1989, which denied its motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[666]*666On this appeal, the defendant challenges the Supreme Court’s determination which denied its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court concluded that a valid cause of action based on fraud was stated therein.

We agree with the defendant that a fraud cause of action was not alleged by the plaintiff (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; Glassman v Catli, 111 AD2d 744). Nevertheless, we find that the allegations in the amended complaint sufficiently set forth a cause of action to recover an alleged monetary overpayment made by the plaintiff to the defendant. Accordingly, dismissal of the amended complaint was not warranted. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 665, 563 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flexo-craft-prints-inc-v-hbe-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack