Kampe Enterprises, L. L. C. v. Bi-County Scale & Equipment Co.

267 A.D.2d 352, 699 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13154
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 20, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 352 (Kampe Enterprises, L. L. C. v. Bi-County Scale & Equipment Co.) 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
Kampe Enterprises, L. L. C. v. Bi-County Scale & Equipment Co., 267 A.D.2d 352, 699 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated October 20, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and denied their cross application pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint “for the purpose of stating a cause of action”.

[353]*353Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint, as it failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for fraud (see, Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413; Cohen v Cerier, 243 AD2d 670), constructive fraud (see, United Safety v Consolidated Edison Co., 213 AD2d 283), or negligent misrepresentation (see, Ossining Union Free School Dist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 NY2d 417).

The plaintiffs’ contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying their cross application for leave to amend the complaint “for the purpose of stating a cause of action” is without merit (see, Morgan v Prospect Park Assocs. Holdings, 251 AD2d 306). S. Miller, J. P„, O’Brien, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Barrett v. Huff
6 A.D.3d 1164 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 A.D.2d 352, 699 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kampe-enterprises-l-l-c-v-bi-county-scale-equipment-co-nyappdiv-1999.