Lanzi v. Brooks

New York Court of Appeals

Lanzi v. Brooks

373 N.E.2d 278, 43 N.Y.2d 778, 402 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2568

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by247 cases

This text of 373 N.E.2d 278 (Lanzi v. Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lanzi v. Brooks, 373 N.E.2d 278, 43 N.Y.2d 778, 402 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2568 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision of that court, with an additional observation. Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege either a present intent not to carry out the promises of future action, or, in fact, any factual assertions from which this conclusion can be drawn, and thus failed to state a cause of action for fraud based on a misstatement of future *780 intentions (cf. Sabo v Delman, 3 NY2d 155). This failure to allege a necessary element of the cause of action, however, is not to be confused with the requirement of CPLR 3016 (subd [b]) that in an action for fraud, "the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail”. This provision requires only that the misconduct complained of be set forth in sufficient detail to clearly inform a defendant with respect to the incidents complained of and is not to be interpreted so strictly as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be "impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud” (Jered Contr. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 22 NY2d 187, 194).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision of that court, with an additional observation. Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege either a present intent not to carry out the promises of future action, or, in fact, any factual assertions from which this conclusion can be drawn, and thus failed to state a cause of action for fraud based on a misstatement of future *780 intentions (cf. Sabo v Delman, 3 NY2d 155). This failure to allege a necessary element of the cause of action, however, is not to be confused with the requirement of CPLR 3016 (subd [b]) that in an action for fraud, "the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail”. This provision requires only that the misconduct complained of be set forth in sufficient detail to clearly inform a defendant with respect to the incidents complained of and is not to be interpreted so strictly as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be "impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud” (Jered Contr. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 22 NY2d 187, 194).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 N.E.2d 278, 43 N.Y.2d 778, 402 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanzi-v-brooks-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack