Residence on Madison Condominium v. W.T. Gallagher & Associates, Inc.

271 A.D.2d 209, 706 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3869
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 4, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 209 (Residence on Madison Condominium v. W.T. Gallagher & Associates, Inc.) 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
Residence on Madison Condominium v. W.T. Gallagher & Associates, Inc., 271 A.D.2d 209, 706 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered November 17, 1999, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the second, third and fourth causes of action against them pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Taking the allegations of the complaint as true and resolving all inferences reasonably flowing from those allegations in the pleader’s favor, as we must on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (see, Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366), we conclude, as did the [210]*210motion court, that plaintiffs second and third causes of action for fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation sufficiently state the essential elements of the claims (see, Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421; Swersky v Dreyer & Traub, 219 AD2d 321, 326) and adequately apprise defendants of “the circumstances constituting the wrong,” as required by CPLR 3016 (b) (see, Lanzi v Brooks, 43 NY2d 778, 780; Bernstein v Kelso & Co., 231 AD2d 314, 320).

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments, including those pertaining to the denial of that branch of their motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs fraud causes and its fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty as time-barred, and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Wallach, JJ.

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

Related

M.H.B. v. E.C.F.S.
2019 NY Slip Op 8276 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
International Shoppes, Inc. v. Spencer
34 A.D.3d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Salles v. Chase Manhattan Bank
300 A.D.2d 226 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 A.D.2d 209, 706 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/residence-on-madison-condominium-v-wt-gallagher-associates-inc-nyappdiv-2000.