From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dumas v. Fiorito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2004
13 A.D.3d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2004-02205

December 6, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered February 23, 2004, which, among other things, granted the motion of the defendant Gayle Metz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Before: Florio, J.P., H. Miller, S. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Gayle Metz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The cause of action to recover damages for fraud was not pleaded with the specificity required under CPLR 3016 (b) ( see Scomello v. Caronia, 232 AD2d 625; 125 Assoc. v. Cralin Trading Assoc., 196 AD2d 630; Penna v. Caratozzolo, 131 AD2d 738). Conclusory allegations such as those pleaded by the plaintiffs do not satisfy this requirement ( see Sforza v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 210 AD2d 214).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Dumas v. Fiorito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2004
13 A.D.3d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Dumas v. Fiorito

Case Details

Full title:JACK DUMAS et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM FIORITO, Defendant, and GAYLE…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 2004

Citations

13 A.D.3d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
786 N.Y.S.2d 106

Citing Cases

Fulton v. Hankin & Mazel, PLLC

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the law firm's motion which was for summary judgment…

Wysocki v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.

Conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Dumas v. Fiorito, 13 A.D.3d 332 (2d Dep't 2004). Plaintiffs claims…