Fortress Credit Corp. v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fortress Credit Corp. v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C.

95 A.D.3d 685, 943 N.Y.S.2d 890

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 22, 2012·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in Fortress Credit Corp. v Dechert LLP (89 AD3d 615 [2011]) — a case involving virtually identical facts and allegations — the complaint in this action fails to state claims for fraud, legal malpractice, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs have not distinguished this case from Dechert and there has been no change in the law to warrant reexamination of the issues (see NAMA Holdings, LLC v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 92 AD3d 614 [2012]; compare George Campbell Painting v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 92 AD3d 104, 105-106 [2012]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in Fortress Credit Corp. v Dechert LLP (89 AD3d 615 [2011]) — a case involving virtually identical facts and allegations — the complaint in this action fails to state claims for fraud, legal malpractice, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs have not distinguished this case from Dechert and there has been no change in the law to warrant reexamination of the issues (see NAMA Holdings, LLC v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 92 AD3d 614 [2012]; compare George Campbell Painting v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 92 AD3d 104, 105-106 [2012]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

Fortress Credit Corp. v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C., 95 A.D.3d 685, 943 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

95 A.D.3d 685 (Fortress Credit Corp. v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related