Latimore v. Fuller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Latimore v. Fuller

127 A.D.3d 521, 8 N.Y.S.3d 276

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

DecidedApril 14, 2015

Docket14803 109456/11

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 521 (Latimore v. Fuller) 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

Latimore v. Fuller, 127 A.D.3d 521, 8 N.Y.S.3d 276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered April 8, 2013, which, inter alia, granted defendant Elma Kim’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against her, and denied plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered May 17, 2013, dismissing the complaint as against said defendant (CPLR 5520 [c]), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*522 Plaintiff neither established that New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over defendant Kim nor made a sufficient start to warrant jurisdictional discovery, since she failed to show that the few contacts Kim had with New York are substantially related to plaintiffs claims (see CPLR 302 [a] [1]; Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467 [1988]; Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]).

The complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud since it alleges only that Kim submitted a perjurious affidavit concerning misappropriation of plaintiffs idea for a television series in plaintiffs prior federal action. Allegations of perjury committed in judicial proceedings do not form the basis of plenary civil actions for damages “except [ ] ‘where the perjury is merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme’ ” (Yalkowsky v Shedler, 94 AD2d 684, 684 [1st Dept 1983], lv dismissed in part, lv denied in part 60 NY2d 700 [1983], quoting New in Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]). The aiding and abetting fraud cause of action, which alleges vaguely that Kim helped other defendants “hide the ill gotten gains,” is not pleaded with the requisite particularity (see CPLR 3016 [b]; Friedman v Anderson, 23 AD3d 163, 166 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered April 8, 2013, which, inter alia, granted defendant Elma Kim’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against her, and denied plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered May 17, 2013, dismissing the complaint as against said defendant (CPLR 5520 [c]), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*522 Plaintiff neither established that New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over defendant Kim nor made a sufficient start to warrant jurisdictional discovery, since she failed to show that the few contacts Kim had with New York are substantially related to plaintiffs claims (see CPLR 302 [a] [1]; Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467 [1988]; Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]).

The complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud since it alleges only that Kim submitted a perjurious affidavit concerning misappropriation of plaintiffs idea for a television series in plaintiffs prior federal action. Allegations of perjury committed in judicial proceedings do not form the basis of plenary civil actions for damages “except [ ] ‘where the perjury is merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme’ ” (Yalkowsky v Shedler, 94 AD2d 684, 684 [1st Dept 1983], lv dismissed in part, lv denied in part 60 NY2d 700 [1983], quoting New in Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]). The aiding and abetting fraud cause of action, which alleges vaguely that Kim helped other defendants “hide the ill gotten gains,” is not pleaded with the requisite particularity (see CPLR 3016 [b]; Friedman v Anderson, 23 AD3d 163, 166 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 521, 8 N.Y.S.3d 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latimore-v-fuller-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack