Nuova v. Slowchowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nuova v. Slowchowsky

62 A.D.3d 473, 877 N.Y.S.2d 891

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 12, 2009·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 3, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant gold merchants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against Slowchowsky and the fraud claim as against GF Int’l Holding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fraud claim was duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim, since the alleged misrepresentation of an existing fact was made in the context of merely assuring plaintiff that GF would comply with its contractual obligation and no additional duty was allegedly breached (cf. First Bank of Ams. v Motor Car Funding, 257 AD2d 287, 291 [1999]). Moreover, plaintiff sought no damages that were not also recoverable under its breach of contract theory (see Mañas v VMS Assoc., LLC, 53 AD3d 451, 454 [2008]).

We decline to address defendants-respondents’ contentions for affirmative relief in light of their failure to appeal from the order. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Catterson, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 3, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant gold merchants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against Slowchowsky and the fraud claim as against GF Int’l Holding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fraud claim was duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim, since the alleged misrepresentation of an existing fact was made in the context of merely assuring plaintiff that GF would comply with its contractual obligation and no additional duty was allegedly breached (cf. First Bank of Ams. v Motor Car Funding, 257 AD2d 287, 291 [1999]). Moreover, plaintiff sought no damages that were not also recoverable under its breach of contract theory (see Mañas v VMS Assoc., LLC, 53 AD3d 451, 454 [2008]).

We decline to address defendants-respondents’ contentions for affirmative relief in light of their failure to appeal from the order. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Catterson, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Nuova v. Slowchowsky, 62 A.D.3d 473, 877 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

62 A.D.3d 473 (Nuova v. Slowchowsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related