Knox v. Sprague

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knox v. Sprague

255 A.D.2d 428, 680 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11992

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 428 (Knox v. Sprague) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 428, 680 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knox-v-sprague-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack