Sciaraffo v. LaMattina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sciaraffo v. LaMattina

304 A.D.2d 644, 757 N.Y.S.2d 497

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

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 644 (Sciaraffo v. LaMattina) 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

Sciaraffo v. LaMattina, 304 A.D.2d 644, 757 N.Y.S.2d 497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for conspiracy to commit fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 15, 2002, which granted the motion of defendants Joseph LaMattina, Paul Lemole, and Agatha Yennella Sciaraffo, joined by the defendant Regina Palumbo, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In support of the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, evidence was submitted that the plaintiffs allegations were insufficient to support a cause of action alleging civil conspiracy to defraud him out of his funds, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response (see generally New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 318 [1995]; Knowles v City of New York, 176 NY 430, 437 [1903]; Gould v Community Health Plan of Suffolk, 99 AD2d [645]*645479 [1984]; Lapis Enters. v International Blimpie Corp., 84 AD2d 286, 292 [1981]). Moreover, to the extent the complaint purports to allege causes of action to recover damages for legal malpractice or conversion, those causes of actions are time-barred (see CPLR 214 [4], [6]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for conspiracy to commit fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 15, 2002, which granted the motion of defendants Joseph LaMattina, Paul Lemole, and Agatha Yennella Sciaraffo, joined by the defendant Regina Palumbo, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In support of the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, evidence was submitted that the plaintiffs allegations were insufficient to support a cause of action alleging civil conspiracy to defraud him out of his funds, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response (see generally New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 318 [1995]; Knowles v City of New York, 176 NY 430, 437 [1903]; Gould v Community Health Plan of Suffolk, 99 AD2d [645]*645479 [1984]; Lapis Enters. v International Blimpie Corp., 84 AD2d 286, 292 [1981]). Moreover, to the extent the complaint purports to allege causes of action to recover damages for legal malpractice or conversion, those causes of actions are time-barred (see CPLR 214 [4], [6]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 644, 757 N.Y.S.2d 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sciaraffo-v-lamattina-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack