Vandermulen v. Fidelity National Title Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vandermulen v. Fidelity National Title Insurance

63 A.D.3d 1044, 880 N.Y.S.2d 574

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

DecidedJune 23, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 1044 (Vandermulen v. Fidelity National Title Insurance) 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

Vandermulen v. Fidelity National Title Insurance, 63 A.D.3d 1044, 880 N.Y.S.2d 574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the causes of action alleging negligence, a violation of General Business Law § 349, fraud, and malpractice.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Supreme Court properly determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging a violation of General Business Law § 349 (see CFLR 3211 [a] [7]; see generally Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20 [1995]; Sussman v Grado, 192 Misc 2d 628, 634 [2002]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Covello, Leventhal and Belen, 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 breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the causes of action alleging negligence, a violation of General Business Law § 349, fraud, and malpractice.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Supreme Court properly determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging a violation of General Business Law § 349 (see CFLR 3211 [a] [7]; see generally Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20 [1995]; Sussman v Grado, 192 Misc 2d 628, 634 [2002]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Covello, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 1044, 880 N.Y.S.2d 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandermulen-v-fidelity-national-title-insurance-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack