Van Neil v. Berger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Neil v. Berger

219 A.D.2d 811, 632 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10832

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 811 (Van Neil v. Berger) 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

Van Neil v. Berger, 219 A.D.2d 811, 632 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted in part and third cause of action dismissed. Memorandum: A cause of action for fraud or misrepresentation must state in detail the circumstances constituting the wrong (CPLR 3016 [b]). A cause of action for fraud is not stated where the only fraud alleged relates to a breach of contract (Sparka Travel v Hamza, 182 AD2d 1067,1067-1068). Because plaintiff s third cause of action neither alleges a breach of a duty distinct from the contractual duty between the parties, nor states specific claims of fraud or misrepresentation, Supreme Court should have dismissed it (see, Edwil Indus. v Stroba Instruments Corp., 131 AD2d 425). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — Dismiss Cause of Action.) Present — Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted in part and third cause of action dismissed. Memorandum: A cause of action for fraud or misrepresentation must state in detail the circumstances constituting the wrong (CPLR 3016 [b]). A cause of action for fraud is not stated where the only fraud alleged relates to a breach of contract (Sparka Travel v Hamza, 182 AD2d 1067,1067-1068). Because plaintiff s third cause of action neither alleges a breach of a duty distinct from the contractual duty between the parties, nor states specific claims of fraud or misrepresentation, Supreme Court should have dismissed it (see, Edwil Indus. v Stroba Instruments Corp., 131 AD2d 425). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — Dismiss Cause of Action.) Present — Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 811, 632 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-neil-v-berger-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack