Romanoff Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. Ougoulava

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romanoff Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. Ougoulava

262 A.D.2d 474, 691 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6650

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 474 (Romanoff Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. Ougoulava) 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

Romanoff Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. Ougoulava, 262 A.D.2d 474, 691 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated August 5, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) which was to dismiss the third cause of action to recover damages for fraud.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the third cause of action seeking to recover damages for fraud, as the complaint stated a cause of action sounding in fraud with sufficient specificity (see, Knox v Sprague, 255 AD2d 428). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated August 5, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) which was to dismiss the third cause of action to recover damages for fraud.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the third cause of action seeking to recover damages for fraud, as the complaint stated a cause of action sounding in fraud with sufficient specificity (see, Knox v Sprague, 255 AD2d 428). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 474, 691 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romanoff-restaurant-cabaret-inc-v-ougoulava-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack