Rand v. Laico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rand v. Laico

282 A.D.2d 444, 722 N.Y.S.2d 405, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 444 (Rand v. Laico) 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

Rand v. Laico, 282 A.D.2d 444, 722 N.Y.S.2d 405, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages based on fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated March 28, 2000, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Joseph R. Laico which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The complaint fails to state a cause of action to recover damages for fraud. A cause of action sounding in fraud may not be based on “statements which were promissory in nature at the time they were made and which related to future actions or conduct” (Rapanakis v Athanasiou, 250 AD2d 583, 584; see, Brown v Lockwood, 76 AD2d 721, 731; cf., Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403).

The plaintiff’s only cognizable cause of action against the respondent is based on his alleged breach of a guaranty agreement, and is time-barred.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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