Montefiore v. Soja

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montefiore v. Soja

292 A.D.2d 241, 738 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2913

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 19, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants-respondents Thomas Soja [242] and Syble Young to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Dismissal of the complaint for, inter alia, fraud as against defendant Soja was proper, since plaintiffs material allegations against Soja, even if facially sufficient, were flatly contradicted by the documentary evidence submitted by plaintiff as exhibits to the complaint (see, Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 257 AD2d 76, 81, affd 94 NY2d 659). In addition, inasmuch as plaintiff demonstrably had no viable fraud claim against Soja, plaintiffs proposed claim against defendant Young for conspiring with Soja to defraud plaintiff was properly rejected as plainly without merit, and thus leave to replead to assert the proposed claim against Young was properly denied (see, Hornstein v Wolf, 67 NY2d 721). Concur— Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants-respondents Thomas Soja [242] and Syble Young to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Dismissal of the complaint for, inter alia, fraud as against defendant Soja was proper, since plaintiffs material allegations against Soja, even if facially sufficient, were flatly contradicted by the documentary evidence submitted by plaintiff as exhibits to the complaint (see, Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 257 AD2d 76, 81, affd 94 NY2d 659). In addition, inasmuch as plaintiff demonstrably had no viable fraud claim against Soja, plaintiffs proposed claim against defendant Young for conspiring with Soja to defraud plaintiff was properly rejected as plainly without merit, and thus leave to replead to assert the proposed claim against Young was properly denied (see, Hornstein v Wolf, 67 NY2d 721). Concur— Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Montefiore v. Soja, 292 A.D.2d 241, 738 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

292 A.D.2d 241 (Montefiore v. Soja) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related