Knox v. Sprague

255 A.D.2d 428, 680 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11992
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud, the defendants Jordan Berkman and Arlyne Berkman appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Shapiro, J.), dated June 25, 1997, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to state a cause of action and failure to comply with the specificity requirements of CPLR 3016 (b).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint stated a cause of action against the appellants sounding in fraud with sufficient specificity so as to comply with CPLR 3016 (b) (see, Black v Chittenden, 69 NY2d 665; Lanzi v Brooks, 43 NY2d 778, 780; F.S. Intertrade Off. Prods. v Babina, 199 AD2d 95; Lawatsch v Cooney, 20 App Div 470). Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Knox v. Sprague, 255 A.D.2d 428, 680 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

255 A.D.2d 428 (Knox v. Sprague) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Romanoff Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. Ougoulava
262 A.D.2d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)