Kanev v. Turk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kanev v. Turk

187 A.D.2d 395, 589 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13333

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 395 (Kanev v. Turk) 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

Kanev v. Turk, 187 A.D.2d 395, 589 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Irma V. Santaella, J.), entered on or about February 13, 1991, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verified complaint adequately sets forth causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia: that defendant-appellant was her accountant; that he advised her to loan $25,000 to another one of his clients; that he advised her that there was no need to secure the loan; that he knew of the borrower’s insolvency and intentionally deceived plaintiff; that plaintiff relied on defendant-appellant’s advice; and, plaintiff was damaged as a result, since the loan has not been fully repaid (see, Lyons v Quandt, 91 AD2d 709; Mandelblatt v Devon Stores, 132 AD2d 162, 166-168).

We have considered all other claims and find them to be of no merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

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

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Irma V. Santaella, J.), entered on or about February 13, 1991, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verified complaint adequately sets forth causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia: that defendant-appellant was her accountant; that he advised her to loan $25,000 to another one of his clients; that he advised her that there was no need to secure the loan; that he knew of the borrower’s insolvency and intentionally deceived plaintiff; that plaintiff relied on defendant-appellant’s advice; and, plaintiff was damaged as a result, since the loan has not been fully repaid (see, Lyons v Quandt, 91 AD2d 709; Mandelblatt v Devon Stores, 132 AD2d 162, 166-168).

We have considered all other claims and find them to be of no merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 395, 589 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanev-v-turk-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack