From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chase Investments, Ltd. v. Kent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1998
256 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 7, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schmidt, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend its complaint so as to assert a cause of action to recover damages for fraud is denied, and the order dated August 13, 1997, is modified accordingly.

The Supreme Court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint so as to assert a cause of action to recover damages for fraud. Generally, leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just" (CPLR 3025[b]; see, Romeo v. Arrigo, 254 A.D.2d 270). Although the decision whether to grant such leave is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, Mayers v. D'Agostino, 58 N.Y.2d 696; Duffy v. Bass D'Allesandro, 245 A.D.2d 333), "where the insufficiency or lack of merit of the cause of action sought to be asserted is clear and free from doubt, leave should not be granted" ( Metral v. Horn, 213 A.D.2d 524, 525; see, Romeo v. Arrigo, supra).

Here, the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint failed to sufficiently allege all of the elements of a cause of action to recover damages for fraud ( see, CPLR 3016 [b]). "In order to state a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must allege, inter alia, a misrepresentation of fact" ( Karsanow v. Kuehlewein, 232 A.D.2d 458), and "a representation of opinion or a prediction of something which is hoped or expected to occur in the future will not sustain an action for fraud" ( Zanani v. Savad, 217 A.D.2d 696, 697). The alleged representations of the defendants to the effect that the plaintiff would successfully obtain a zoning variance, upon which the contract was conditioned, constituted nothing more than "opinion[s] or prediction [s] of something which is expected to occur in the future, and [therefore] cannot sustain a claim for fraud" ( Karsanow v. Kuehlewein, supra, at 458; Zanani v. Savad, supra).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chase Investments, Ltd. v. Kent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1998
256 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Chase Investments, Ltd. v. Kent

Case Details

Full title:CHASE INVESTMENTS, LTD., Respondent, v. WILLIAM J. KENT, III, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 7, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 319

Citing Cases

Tichner v. Golden Bridge Inc.

An opinion or prediction of something which is hoped or expected to occur in the future does not constitute a…

Rooney v. Advent Product Development, Inc.

Advent claims that the alleged facts supporting fraud amount to the plaintiff's claim that the defendant said…