Leff v. Leff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leff v. Leff

202 A.D.2d 373, 612 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 373 (Leff v. Leff) 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

Leff v. Leff, 202 A.D.2d 373, 612 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered March 8, 1993, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring the terms of the May 24, 1988 settlement agreement to be binding on defendant and directing defendant to pay the outstanding child support due thereunder, and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss defendant’s [374]*374counterclaim for lack of merit pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant has failed to allege sufficient evidentiary facts in support of his affirmative defense that he was fraudulently induced to enter the subject settlement. None of the elements of fraud, except for scienter, are even pleaded, and the scienter allegations are entirely conclusory. In any event, defendant surely was in a better position than plaintiff to ascertain the status of the matter about which he claims he was misled by plaintiff and this carelessness on his part cannot be made into a fraud on plaintiff’s part.

Defendant’s counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, apparently arising out of the claimed fraud, is deficient for the same reasons, but should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 (a), in the absence of the written demand required by CPLR 3216 (b) (3). However, to reverse for this reason, when dismissal inevitably would follow because of defendant’s inability to sufficiently allege the underlying fraud, would exalt form over substance. Accordingly, we grant plaintiff summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b). Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered March 8, 1993, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring the terms of the May 24, 1988 settlement agreement to be binding on defendant and directing defendant to pay the outstanding child support due thereunder, and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss defendant’s [374]*374counterclaim for lack of merit pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant has failed to allege sufficient evidentiary facts in support of his affirmative defense that he was fraudulently induced to enter the subject settlement. None of the elements of fraud, except for scienter, are even pleaded, and the scienter allegations are entirely conclusory. In any event, defendant surely was in a better position than plaintiff to ascertain the status of the matter about which he claims he was misled by plaintiff and this carelessness on his part cannot be made into a fraud on plaintiff’s part.

Defendant’s counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, apparently arising out of the claimed fraud, is deficient for the same reasons, but should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 (a), in the absence of the written demand required by CPLR 3216 (b) (3). However, to reverse for this reason, when dismissal inevitably would follow because of defendant’s inability to sufficiently allege the underlying fraud, would exalt form over substance. Accordingly, we grant plaintiff summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b). Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 373, 612 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leff-v-leff-nyappdiv-1994.